Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Durr on May 13, 2002, 05:30:02 PM
-
The Battle of Midway is one that I have studied since I was very young. I even ended up doing a project on the battle for one of my Air Force classes in college. This was clearly one of the most important battles of World War II, and is important for many reasons. Rarely do you see such a decisive battle, that has such clear implications as a turning point. The forces were very nearly equal in many ways, with the Japanese having a slight edge in aircraft and weapons quality, as well as in numbers of ships, although this was balanced in part by the American knowledge of their intentions through the broken Japanese code.
I have long wished to have the opportunity to replay the Battle of Midway in a flight simulator. I had Aces of the Pacific, but it didnt do a good job with the Midway campaign. That was my last WW2 simulator that was set in the Pacific theatre, or featured Pacific theatre aircraft, until Aces High. I am extremely excited about the prospect of having the Battle of Midway as a special event at some point. For a long time, the plane set to do this just didnt exist, but now it seems that we may be close.
The following planes were present at the Battle of Midway:
USA: F-4f, F-2f, SBD, TBF, TBD, Vindicator, PBY, B-26, B-17
Japan: Zero, Kate, Val, various spotter planes
The ones that I consider crucial for a AH scenario of the event at the very minimum:
F-4f, SBD, Zero, Val, and some type of torpedo plane for both sides.
We already have the B-17 and B-26 although not the correct versions, they will be fine for our purposes, especially since neither of these aircraft types played a significant role in the battle. B-17s bombed from altitude, only scoring one possible minor hit. B-26s carried torpedoes, which their crews had never dropped before, and participated in the lo-level torpedo attacks that were decimated by the IJN fleet AA guns and Zeroes.
The Vindicator and Buffalo were used by the USMC from the island itself, but were slaughtered and didnt accomplish much except to provide bullet sponges for the IJN fighters.
The PBY was one of the major heroes of the battle, as it located the IJN fleet, and also did a torpedo attack that resulted in a hit on a Japanese support ship, but I think we will have to do without it for now, since it would have little role in AH as the game is currently set up.
The prime players, however, were the Carrier based fighters, dive and torpedo bombers on both sides. We know we are getting the older variant of the Zero, the F-4f, and the Val in the next release already.
We already have the Avenger (which made its combat debut at Midway, when 6 of them launched from Midway itself, and were promptly massacred by the Japanese fighters, with only 1 making it back to the island).
The TBD Devestator was the torpedo bomber used by all the US carriers at Midway, and they were wiped out almost to the last man (in the case of one squadron, Torpedo 8, from the Hornet, literally to the last man, as they only had one survivor). The Devestator isnt likely to make it into the game any time soon, and I dont think that many would argue that it should. It was hopelessly obselete by Midway, and wouldnt stand a chance in AH. Although I normally detest plane substitutions, the Avenger can and should substitute for the TBD.
The IJN need a torpedo bomber, but likely the Avenger will get to sub in for them as well, although I dont really like that idea. I would prefer to see the Grace introduced, and use that to sub for the Kate.
The one aircraft that we really need for this scenario most of all, that we do not currently have, is the star of the battle, the SBD Dauntless dive bomber. This aircraft, flown by the brave pilots of the USN and USMC, was responsible for almost all the damage done to the IJN at Midway. The SBD sank or severely damaged 4 Japanese fleet carriers as well as one heavy cruiser. The SBD also accounted for a number of Japanese fighters as well, both with the tail guns, and in at least one case, with the fixed pilot fired .50s.
When we get the SBD, I think we need to do the battle of Midway.
-
Hmmmm - Miday Scenario - there is a new idea . . .
Hmmmmm .. . .
-
Originally posted by jordi
Hmmmm - Miday Scenario - there is a new idea . . .
I've never heard of Miday... what is it?
Was that the battle where Fockewulfs fought 109s?
-
:p
-
Aub asked
Was that the battle where Fockewulfs fought 109s?
No, that was "Gwadakanal"
-
Originally posted by Aub
I've never heard of Miday... what is it?
Was that the battle where Fockewulfs fought 109s?
YA YA YA
See you over LONDON Baby ! Unless your CHICKEN !
Jordi
-
Hey, i was on Team Hacka too :)
As I remember your call of 'going downtown' never played out for us, now did it? :)
-
"Zypher to Wirlwind, emeny carrier sighted!"
-
Originally posted by Durr
Rarely do you see such a decisive battle, that has such clear implications as a turning point. The forces were very nearly equal in many ways, with the Japanese having a slight edge in aircraft and weapons quality, as well as in numbers of ships, although this was balanced in part by the American knowledge of their intentions through the broken Japanese code.
I didn't know that the Midway was such 'a close run thing' Your description above reminded me of the French historian (Montaigne?) who said something like..."strength lies not in our horses or weapons but in our own."
It sounds as if Midway has the makings for a great setup in CT. Whom knows how to do that map-thingummy to set this battle up? We can call it "the BoB of the Pacific" to get the RAF and Luft fans involved! ha ha
-
When we get the SBD, I think we need to do the battle of Midway.
What a great idea, why didn't we think of that? Hmm, maybe we already did! ;)
-
I can not imagine how we would do a Midway set up for the CT, a week of sinking and resinking the same CV's? hmmmm yawn, better for those CM boys to do a set up for it I should think.
-
I dont see why we couldnt have a CT Midway setup too. Four carrier groups on the Japanese side, and three on the US, plus the US gets an airbase on the island itself. Would obviously be radically different than any other setup ever done, since the Japanese would have no land bases. The island would serve as a focal point for the action since it would be the only real known point. With 7 cv groups swirling around in close proximity, should be interesting. I do think the ack lethality should be turned down on the CV fleets for this though, to reflect the lower lethality of 1942 ack in general.
-
Ensign George Gay was the last guy in the dauntless's he spoke at my high school about 10 years ago. Very interesting character. Talked about the movie Midway and how he got shot thru the hand only in the movie it was the wrong hand. He also spoke of how bloody close he was to the ships after he got shot down, he said if he had a rock he could have easily threw it and hit the side of the carrier.
-
some good reading about the battle of midway...in particular and interview with ensign george gay
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq81-8c.htm
-
Originally posted by Durr
I dont see why we couldnt have a CT Midway setup too. Four carrier groups on the Japanese side, and three on the US, plus the US gets an airbase on the island itself. Would obviously be radically different than any other setup ever done, since the Japanese would have no land bases. The island would serve as a focal point for the action since it would be the only real known point. With 7 cv groups swirling around in close proximity, should be interesting. I do think the ack lethality should be turned down on the CV fleets for this though, to reflect the lower lethality of 1942 ack in general.
Or for CT . .
Let either side capture / recapture Midway - Not sure if it can be set so that after the capture the side that just captured it has just thier planes availabe ?
Lots of ways you can make it interesting.
Jordi
-
I'm with Brady on this one in that it is hard to imagine how a Midway CT could work. The reason is that Carrier Operations are so very far removed from reality at this point. In AH, every carrier can hold an infinite number of aircraft and can ready and launch a strike of 1 to many planes instantly.
Said another way, AH is a very good WWII aircombat simulator, but to do the battle of Midway in any meanful way, you also need a very good naval operations simulator.
YMMV
-
Originally posted by brady
I can not imagine how we would do a Midway set up for the CT, a week of sinking and resinking the same CV's? hmmmm yawn, better for those CM boys to do a set up for it I should think.
Personally I think there would be a huge difference between bombing a static Air base / Town and captureing it ( And recapture it after the other side has captured it over a weeks period of time ) compared to hunting and trying to sink a moving carrier.
Your milage may vary.
Jordi
-
Originally posted by HFMudd
I'm with Brady on this one in that it is hard to imagine how a Midway CT could work. The reason is that Carrier Operations are so very far removed from reality at this point. In AH, every carrier can hold an infinite number of aircraft and can ready and launch a strike of 1 to many planes instantly.
YMMV
And that is different than a Land air base ? All land bases work just the same as a CV Does - with the same warped reality. Capture an enemy base a volia - all your planes are now available.
You can set WIND so that it makes it easier or HARDER to take off and land if the cv is pointed in the right or WRONG direction.
Granted you would have to live with the warped rality that you may sink multiple dozens of enemy CV's and fleets over a weeks period of time. But the same is true with the land grab and lose and land grab back - not close to reality.
Jordi
-
Just make it so the map resets if and when the IJN captures the island of Midway. The captured airfield wouldnt be able to spawn planes at all for the Japanese. They would have to capture all facilities at the island, which hopefully would include an airflield, port and 1 or 2 v bases. Once these four were captured, the map would reset. I dont think fleets should get to respawn either, if there is a way to stop that. Perhaps fleets respawn time should be set so high (if this is possible) that they wouldnt likely respawn before a reset. Thus victory conditions would be:
IJN: capture Midway island.
USN: sink all 4 IJN carriers.
This would be very different from anything done in the CT in the past, but lots of different things have been tried in the CT before. Its only 1 week, why not give it a try.
-
<> [edit] Quote by Brady
I can imagine and it sounds like fun to me. Especially the way Durr described it in the previous post.
But I guess capturing and re-capturing fields for a week is more fun.
<>
Imagine.
-
Originally posted by Durr
The Battle of Midway is one that I have studied since I was very young. I even ended up doing a project on the battle for one of my Air Force classes in college.
A friend of mine was aboard the ship that picked up the pilot who parachuted into the ocean and watched most of the battle from his rubber raft. What was his name? George something ...
gary
-
Gay:p
-
Yep, Ensign George Gay, the only survivor of Torpedo 8. He didnt parachute though, he ditched.
-
read my posts above very good interview with george gay
-
But the US wouldn't have gotten those 4 carriers (3 in 6 minutes) if the Japanese wouldn't have fallen into a trap. The trap being the false signal to "reel them in" due to a "lack of water" (which they had plenty of). The Japanese took this as gospel and the "turkey shoot" was on, but they nailed "The Fighting Lady" (Yorktown). I don't see a reasonable way to do it in the Sim. I mean you had outnumbered roops fighting (stalling) until the CV's could arrive. If they could do it, great.
Definately the end of line for the Japanese though.
Masher
-
Originally posted by banana
I dont know about Jordi, but dont wink at Aub you will get him excited
-
Originally posted by brady
I can not imagine how we would do a Midway set up for the CT, a week of sinking and resinking the same CV's? hmmmm yawn, better for those CM boys to do a set up for it I should think.
Some of us are very interested in the carrier duels of 1942, Midway was not the only one.
With you on the staff, no wonder the CT is a failure.
-
Here's a couple of clue-by-fours for those with out any:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/map.htm
http://www.everblue.net/1942/
Westy
-
Hmmm... If HTC keeps this up, we should be able to do the biggest Carrier battle the world has ever seen.
And let me clue yah that it wasn't Midway. ;)
-
Originally posted by Vermillion
Hmmm... If HTC keeps this up, we should be able to do the biggest Carrier battle the world has ever seen.
And let me clue yah that it wasn't Midway. ;)
Hmmm....Ki-67 was involved for the first time, and it rhymns with "Sillipeen Pee"? :D
-
Hey,
There's an issue on the newstand (can't recall the mag name) all about The Battle of Midway. Articles on the loss of the yorktown, the devestator raid, history of the Thatch Weave air-to-air combat manuever...etc... check it out.
you can probably find it in the history section (if store has one!)
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
But the US wouldn't have gotten those 4 carriers (3 in 6 minutes) if the Japanese wouldn't have fallen into a trap. The trap being the false signal to "reel them in" due to a "lack of water" (which they had plenty of).
I think you misunderstand. The signal was not to lure the Japanese in -- the signal was to test an Allied assumption about the target of the strike.
By 1942, the Japanese ciphers were broken seven ways to Sunday -- it was clear that a major attack was being prepared against a target only designated as AF. Midway was the prime suspect, so the message you refer to was sent. Japanese intercepts were noted to say "AF is low on water," confirming that Midway was indeed AF, and thus the destination of the attack.