Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Seeker on November 19, 2001, 06:46:00 AM
-
An honest request for opinions.....
Reading these boards, I see a constant anti-Spit whine, which normaly goes roughly along the lines that the Spit shines where the LW planes suck due to:
A) Unhistoric fight altitudes (sub-10K)
B) Lemming-like ganging (could be true, but I reckon applies to all)
C) All pervasive Dar robbing the Lw of the 100% surprise they actually achieved in wartime.
And the reason I titled this Dieppe is that while the Spit's superiority to the 109 had already been clearly demonstrated by end 1940,as far as I'm aware the first time the RAF came up against the 190 in strength was the Dieppe landings, where:
A) The fights were low alt
B) There was tremendous ganging
C) The Lw had absolutly no element of surprise.
......and the RAF had it's arse handed to it.
So I'd like to ask the anti-Spit whiners, in the light of the above:
Just where do you people screw up so badly?
-
you're just trolling
name an anti-spit whiner and go check his stats against all vrs of spits in ah.
The spit wasn't "clearly superior" to 109s at the end of 1940. There were a whole host of reasons why the lw was defeated during BoB. Far more that can justify the simplistic term "clearly superior".
IMHO the will not to be defeated did more to defeat the lw then anything else but thats off-topic.
the spitfire is a great plane all round no one I know would be happy if they were't in AH. The current spit planeset in ah is competitive in AH. imho its the best plane for the type of gameplay in the main.
I don't know what your point is. Except maybe to stir the pot some more.. :rolleyes:
Ah well its your Dime.........
-
S!
Dieppe was in summer '42, shortly after the 190A4 had come out with the BMW 801 now running at full boost. At that time, the A4 was easily the superior to the Spit V, as the A5 is its superior in AH. The 109F4 was also present, what many perceive to be the pinnacle of 109 development vis a vis its opponents, and was no slouch, with a superior climb and top speed, and maneuverability not far off the Spits in the horizontal.
Plus the Brits were still using Hurricane IIC's, which in enviroments where spotting your opponent is much more difficult than in AH, suffered tremendously from its lack of speed and climb. The Hurricanes were also carrying ground attack ordanance in many cases, as they were the "Typhoons" of their day, which made them even more vulnerable.
This was because the British were focused on ground support for the landing, which meant they were operating at low levels, while the Luftwaffe was focused on disrupting the ground support which meant they almost always had the height advantage.
Plus the Luftwaffe bases were closer to Dieppe, which meant the Luftwaffe could refuel and re-up faster.
That answer your statement?
Finally, the Luftwaffe didn't "hand the Brits their a**es", they inflicted more losses, but suffered quite a few of their own.
-
Hey, we're not 'anti-spit whiners'.
We're 'anti-spit pilot whiners' :D
Chuck said, "It's the man, not the machine". So, we naturally hate Spit pilots, not Spits :D
...
..but seriously though, Spits were great planes well suited for their task and I think there's no problem with that, at least in my case. It's a superb plane, and one of those planes that is virtually unshakeable from your 6 when you get one behind you at 250 mph :D.. but I reckon that's why Spits are great planes. It is undoubtable that they are easy and pleasant to fly.. that's what made them so great in the real war.
The power and accuracy of those Hispanos still brings out a bit of a frown on my face, though. I imagine things would be a bit different when more sophisticated damage modeling is introduced... or if range indicators disappear when enemy is within 2.0k .. or if the power of Hispanos are turned down a bit.. but even then, the Spit will be a great plane. It always was and always will be :)
It is also
-
I wrote a TOD up titled "Wings over Dieppe" we may see that event in the new year :)
Spits, Hurricane IIc, B17, 109F4, Ju88, 190a5 should be fun.
I'm waiting for the Schtuka and Me110 so we can do a battle of Britain TOD or even better large scenario of Battle of Britain.
-
Kweassa... I've flown a lot of the LW planes with MG151/20s, and I've flown the Spitfires with the 20mm Hispano MkIIs. I don't think that the Hispano inherently has better accuracy than the MG151, but I do think that the Spitfires are, at lower speeds, easier to make fine adjustments to your aim, which obviously makes it easier to hit, but I don't think that makes a huge difference. I DO think that the Hispanos, in my experience, do a lot more damage with a single round. Obviously, it is a more potent round to begin with, but whether or not this is the way it should be, I won't get into - that's just my observation in the game.
I think Spits are very capable planes, and they are forgiving enough to make them a good ride in which to get used to AH. I also think that, like any other planes, the guy in the cockpit is going to make the real difference, and to do REALLY well in any plane, you have to have everything in one sock.
-
Skernsk first B-17F raid to Germany(Wilhelmshaven) was in Jan.1943 so 109 should be G-2 or maybe even G-6 if B-17 will be in that scen. :)
-
I thought that the battle of britain was mostly hurricanes vs Bf-110Cs. The 109s if I remember correctly from a BBC documentary, had only 20 mins of fuel to fly over Britian, before they had to turn back.
Thats why the bomber escorts were mostly
Bf-110Cs which quite frankly, I believe even a P51 could outturn at low altitudes.
-
Originally posted by Staga:
Skernsk first B-17F raid to Germany(Wilhelmshaven) was in Jan.1943 so 109 should be G-2 or maybe even G-6 if B-17 will be in that scen. :)
The raid won't be on Germany. I found reference to a B17 raid on Abbeville escorted by Spit IX's.
Also, Dieppe raid took place in 1942 so I'm not sure what variant of 109 or 190 SHOULD be used. I still have some work to do there. All the info I've found mentions bf109 or fw190 but not the actual model type.
[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: skernsk ]
-
Skernsk, hook up with AnArky, he has a almost fully developed scenario plan for Dieppe (AW3), perhaps you two could collaborate?
With this new idea of multiple frames on a single day, we can short, well defined actions such as "Dieppe" or "Crete" or "Operation Crossbow" and "Operation Carthage" in real time; which sounds bloody interesting.
Hammerhead: You're right, the Hurri has never had the publicity that the Spit had, while bearing most of the load of the BoB; however the Spit was still vital. Your point about the 110's poor turn rate is valid, but don't forget that they were much faster than a Hurri, and much more heavily armed.
-
Staga, B17s flew their first missions to France 2 days before Dieppe, iirc. (Excluding the few missions flown by RAF B17s)
On the day of Dieppe, B17s raided a German airbase (Abbeville?) escorted by four squadrons of Spit IXs.
Skernsk, JG2 used a mix of 190 A2 and A3 (mainly A2), and 109G1s during the Dieppe raid.
-
Skernsk, JG2 used a mix of 190 A2 and A3 (mainly A2), and 109G1s during the Dieppe raid.
We don't have 190A2 or A3 so A5 is the next one I can think of.
109G1 is not available in AH so I chose the 109f4.
Thanks for the info sir :)
[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: skernsk ]
-
S! Skernsk
No B17`s were involved in the tactical support for the Dieppe raid.
Bombers supporting that were Stirlings, Wellingtons, possibly some Bostons, as well as perhaps a few Blenheim IV`s.
You could possibly use B-26`s as substitutes for the Stirling and Bostons, but if you did, you should have a rule that excludes the pilots using the front mounted .50`s. You could also use Ju88`s to sub for the Blenheim IV`s. (similar armament and structure) The Lancaster was just becoming operational at that time, but I`m not sure whether it was used in the tactical role.
Fighters were Hurricane IIC`s, and Spit V`s. There were also some of the Typhoon 1A`s active at that time and I believe some of them participated, however, the aircraft was having problems with a weak tail assembly which was prone to fall off in dives and wasn`t a big factor. Using the Typhoon 1B which was faster and more reliable would not be entirely accurate. Perhaps a few. The Hurricanes were used mostly in a Ground support role. (As you can see, they can carry a pretty good payload)
The Germans had 190A4`s which differed from the A3`s in that they were running at a higher 1.42 Atas Boost, instead of 1.33 in the case of the A3. The Germans had by then resolved most of the cylinder overheating and failure problems they had with the BMW 801. To all intents and purposes the A4 had very similar performance to the AH 190A5. The Messerschmidt was the 109F4.
For bombers they had Ju88A`s. I do not believe there were Stukas involved. I think by then most had been transferred to Russia since they could still survive pretty well in that enviroment, whereas the West was too dangerous.
The British had a significant fleet off the coast in support, although no aircraft carriers. They also had lots of MTB Torpedo boats and destroyers.
Personally I don`t think the current Europe map would be a good one to use in a Dieppe TOD. It doesn`t have the aspects which would make the TOD work.
Better to get a smaller scale map done up with correct fleet units plus trains, convoys, barges etc.
-
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/dieppe.html (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/dieppe.html)
http://www.wlu.ca/~wwwmsds/341coppairoverdep.htm (http://www.wlu.ca/~wwwmsds/341coppairoverdep.htm)
The Luftwaffe was thought to have less than 200 fighter aircraft within range of Dieppe so in theory the RAF would outnumber the enemy by more than 3-1, but the actual operation proved such numbers meant very little. All four Spitfire IX squadrons were initially reserved to escort B17 bombers of the USAAF for a raid on the Luftwaffe base at Abbeville. The Americans had attempted their first mission in the European theatre two days before and it seemed wise to offer them maximum protection. On the way home from Abbeville Ken Hodson’s 401 RCAF squadron approached Dieppe descending to 10,000 feet where a flight of Dornier 217s, escorted by FW190s, was starting a bombing run. 401 Sqdn. quickly broke up this attack damaging several bombers and destroying at least one FW190. Pilot Officer Dan Morrison closed to 25 yards before firing a two-second burst and his own aircraft was damaged by flying debris. He was picked up in the water after bailing out at 250 feet.
I haven't got my notes at work here, but a quick search on Google shows several different sources where B17's were used.
Rather than sub B26 for Boston I decided to Sub B17G for B17E which I found reference to.
Personally I don`t think the current Europe map would be a good one to use in a Dieppe TOD. It doesn`t have the aspects which would make the TOD work.
I agree it is not the best, but the Terrain team is maxed out so we'd have to make due with what we have. At present, Dieppe is not even on the Europe map.
This action took place over a day and we have 3 different frames. The TOD would be based on the battle (if it even happens) but we obviously would be picking different objectives.
Jugding by some responses here I better check and DOUBLE check my research.
[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: skernsk ]
-
Would it have to be a TOD? Doesn't that limit it to squads only?
-
It would'nt have to be a TOD, but I did have that in mind.
It could be a "Snapshot"....
-
S! Skernsk
Here is an excerpt from the official British report on the battle done after the fact. Turns out that the Fortresses mentioned were involved in Dieppe, but not in direct support. They did make an attack on enemy Fighter airfields during the day.
It would seem there were 50 Squadrons of Fighters, 6 Squadrons of close support Fighters, (carrying some ordanance) 2 Squadrons of dedicated `Hurribombers`, and just 2 Squadrons of day bombers. (Bostons) One of the criticisms of the plan which Mountbatten drew up for Dieppe was that there wasn`t enough Ground support aircraft. The original plans created by the Canadian Divisional Commander Roberts, called for something like 20 Squadrons of daybombers, but Mountbatten bowed to political pressure from the British Strat. bombing Chiefs and reduced the numbers. Most analysts point to that, as well as not enough Naval bombardment, as a major reason for the failure of the assault.
Here is the report: (I may have more later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"The Air Battle
35. AIR FORCES
In the preceding pages, little reference has been made to the part played by the R.A.F., mainly because, in the natitre of things, our aircraft, though very active, were not often seen from the ground. It should be clearly understood, however, that the air battle was not a separate phase but went on continuously from the first landings until dark, reaching its greatest intensity during the main withdrawal from the beaches.
The air battle was directed by the Air Force Force-Commander, Air Vice-Marshal T. Leigh-Mallory, from H.Q. of 11 Group of Fighter Command at Uxbridge,2 and the immediate operations of fighters were directed by the fighter controller in the Calpe. The Air Forces detailed to take part in the operation were 56 squadrons of day fighters (50 to provide cover and six for close support), two squadrons of Hurricane bombers, two squadrons of day bombers, four squadrons of Army Co-operation forces, and three squadrons of "Smoke forces," in all 67 squadrons. In addition, Coastal Command provided search patrols during the passage of the expedition throughout the dark hours. Bostons carried out bombing attacks on the east headland battery at 0510, after which a smoke screen was laid over both headlands. The two batteries behind the town were also bombed by Bostons, but owing to the haze and the bad light these attacks on the batteries were considered, in the words of C.C.O., " quite ineffective."3 " Intruder" aircraft engaged batteries, the attack by cannon-firing fighters on" Hess" battery being particularly helpful, as has already been mentioned (Sections 20 and 21). Cannon-fighters supported the landing of the troops on Red and White beaches at Dieppe, and further smoke screens was laid as requested by the Naval and Military Force Commanders. Subsequent bombing attacks were made on the east headland when it was seen that the Blue beach landing at Puits was held up. Unfortunately the bombs, like the destroyers' shells, had little effect on the enemy's defences. Nor can it be said that the bombing was very intensive, for the total of bombs dropped amounted only to some 220 bombs of 500 lb and about 90 of 250 lb, a total of 60 tons (see Appendix E). When it was seen that the situation on white beach was deteriorating, attacks were made at about 0930 on the west headland by "Hurribombers" and cannon-fighters.
1 For fuller details, see B.R. 1887, p. 144 et seq.
2 With him throughout the operation were the Chief of Combined Operations and the G.O.C. 1st Canadian Corps. They had before them, on the naval, military and air plots which were constantly kept up to date as signals came in over the very complete W/T and land line system of communications, a complete picture of the action. Except for a number of discussions on various points with the Royal Air Force Commander, the Chief of Combined Operations and the G.O.C. 1st Canadian Corps refrained from interfering with the course of the operation, which the Force Commanders clearly had in hand.
3 BR., p.32.
40
41
36. ENEMY AIR OPPOSITION
At the commencement of the operation there was practically no enemy air opposition, the Luftwaffe having evidently been taken by surprise, but as time passed enemy sorties of 20 to 30 fighters appeared, and subsequently the strength of the sorties increased to between 50 and 100 aircraft. Fighter bombers also arrived and some abortive attacks were carried out on our ships, but it was not until about 1000 that heavy bombers appeared escorted by fighters. The heavies were energetically attacked by our fighters and sustained severe losses. The bombers made no attempt to attack our troops ashore and confined their attentions to the ships, but, except for the sinking of the Berkeley, had practically no success.
At 1030 an attack was made by 24 Fortresses, escorted by Spitfires, on the fighter airfield at Abbeville-Drucat, which rendered it unserviceable for two hours and probably severely hampered the enemy fighters at the crucial moment of the withdrawal. During the withdrawal Bostons made bombing attacks on the two headlands, and a thick smoke curtain was laid from the air. From 1200, heavy battles between formations of fighters went on over the ships and beaches, the enemy losing heavily. During the voyage home, fighter cover was maintained over the convoy and all attempts of enemy aircraft to attack the ships were foiled.1 In the air we lost eight bombers and smoke-layers, 10 Army Co-operation and reconnaissance aircraft, and 88 fighters, while our casualties in killed and missing were 113, with 40 wounded. It is estimated that the enemy made 125 sorties with bombers and 600 with fighters. Our total sorties were stated to have been about 3,000.
At the time it was thought that the enemy's air losses were considerably greater than ours and that over a quarter of the German Air Force in Western Europe had been put out of action. German records show, however, that in fact we only destroyed 23 fighters and 25 bombers, while 8 fighters and 16 bombers were damaged.
These bare figures, however, do not tell the whole story. According to reliable German documents, there were in the Luftflotte 3 area (France, Belgium and Holland) 299 fighters and 175 bombers, but of these only 206 fighters and 107 bombers were fully serviceable at the time. Thus about 15 per cent of the serviceable fighters and over 38 per cent of the serviceable bombers were either destroyed or substantially damaged. Since the Spring of 1941, when the bulk of the German Air Force was moved to the eastern front, the small force remaining in the west had operated under severe pressure. The bomber units in particular were showing signs of extreme fatigue, resulting in a serious decline in efficiency of both aircraft and crews. Coming just after substantial losses suffered in the raids on Birmingham at the end of July, the casualties at Dieppe were a heavy blow, particularly as nearly all of the crews were lost,including two Squadron Commanders.
These losses should be viewed, too, in the light of the contemporary position of the German Air Force as a whole. Both in the Mediterranean and on the eastern front it was extremely hard pressed and the bomber force especially was stretched to the limit of its capabilities. In these circumstances it can fairly be claimed that Dieppe was an important contribution to the run-down of the forces in the west, which in turn led to a severe restriction of offensive operations against the United Kingdom and British shipping.
1 B.R., p.164. " The cover and support afforded by No.11 Group, R.A.F. were magnificent." M., para.4.
2 The Germans claim to have brought down 112 of our aircraft. German Report.
3 B.R., pp. 33, 164.
4 Information from Air Ministry Historical Branch."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-
Skernsk site you posted says Germans were using 109 G-1 models. That was High-Altitude recon.variant with pressurized cockpit with 1475hp DB605A. G-2 was same plane without pressurized cockpit with same armament as in G-1, One 20mm MG151/20 and two 7,9mm MG17.
-
S!
From the report you can see that the bombers used in direct support were Bostons. Which are most similar to B-26`s, minus the forward firing .50`s.
-
Thanks for the info Buzzbait. That is where I first found reference to the B17 being used during the Dieppe raid (although not DIRECTLY in support at the beach).
Staga. I am certainly no expert in 109's so your info is helpful. If I continue with the write up I think 109f4 and 109G2 would likely work.
I was being cautious about what planes to select because (as demonstrated in this thread) people are REAL sticky on the details :)
My fear with using the G2 was that someone would say...err excuse me skernsk but the G2 wasn't in use until Spetember 1942 ONE full month after the Dieppe raid.
I'm going to put my helmet on and tape up the typing fingers next time I mention a TOD idea :D
-
Originally posted by Buzzbait:
S!
From the report you can see that the bombers used in direct support were Bostons. Which are most similar to B-26`s, minus the forward firing .50`s.
Got ya Buzz. And rather than SUBSTITUTE for a Boston I chose to ignore them adn use the B17. This way it is still historically accurate (sort of :)) and people aren;t going to say that the B26 is 20MPH slower so make sure the throttle setting is not on full power.
Another reason to send the B17's to Abbeville is that is spreads the forces out a little better.
I knew about the 70 squadrons that took place including the Bostons Blenhiems etc. I just chose to go without subbing and to include B17's.
-
S! Skernsk
On the subject of the G2`s...
I know they weren`t in operation on the Meditteranean Front until September/October of `42. Don`t know if the Gruppen in France received theirs earlier.
As far as the G1`s were concerned, they were only produced in small numbers. They would not make up the majority of a Staffel let alone a Gruppe or Jagdgeschwader.
I would say the 109F4 was easily the most numerous of the 109`s present, probably 75%.
The Typhoons weren`t being used in the ground attack role at the time.
I guess it depends on the size of the scenario you are designing, (Snapshot or TOD), but if its a TOD, then the B-26 would be the best bet rather than just include the B-17. There is not much difference in tactical usefulness between the Bostons and B-26. Fighters are gonna catch either one pretty easily. Using the B-17G is in many ways more of a difference, since having the chin turret is a BIG defensive bonus. Up until that was introduced, the German Fighters could make their attacks from 12 o`clock high with only the top turret firing at them, since the single .30 calibre in the nose of the B-17E and B-17F wasn`t much use and often wasn`t manned.
-
I don't think it's a troll wotan..I hate that word.He has a valid opinion and I repsect it.I think the difference is 1 on 1 vs horde vs horde.1 on 1(or 2 vs 2)a 109f(or g2) can hold it's own vs a spit...But when a high spit approaches,you have little time to react before you're dead meat.It has more to do with the arena than the planes which are very well balanced.I see mucho more N1K2 complaining than spitty's.Now..About those damn LA-7's!!!.. :cool:
-
hmm in AH's B-17 ball-turret can shoot up front too, thru the fuselage ;)
-
Quote from site Skernsk linked:
"Operation Jubilee was a raid against Dieppe, France on 19 August 1942"
and
"Opposing the RAF on 19 August 1941(<-Is that a typo?) were JG2 and and JG26 with a combined total of 190 FW 190 A-2 and A-3s and 16 Me 109s (mostly G-1s and a few 109Fs)."
Quote from Wotan's post in This Topic: (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=002701)
"Apr '42 - M.C. 205 first flight; G.55 first flight; Bf 109G-2 enters service with JG 2"
Quote from Baugher's site:
"FOCKE-WULF 190 A-3
Beginning in the spring of 1942, series production of a more powerful engine version BMW 801D-2 that replaced previous versions in the Fw 190Fighter created a new plane version designated as Fw 190A-3. The increase in the BMW 801D-2 engine power (to 1730 kW) was due to a higher compression ratio and higher pressure two-speed compressor. A higher compression ratio and charging pressure made it necessary to use high-octane (96 octane) C3 fuel in place of B4 (87 octane) fuel. Armament of standard Fw 190A-3 planes was the same as in the previous version. Starting from this version, A series airframes were widely used in a big development program with the aim of finding the optimum armament and equipment mix that made it possible to broaden the operational capabilities of the plane beyond fighter operations. The largest part of these modifications were in the form of Umrustbausatz kits, but some did not have special designations and can be recognized only from photographs. The total number of such modified planes is unknown. The best known are the Fw 190A-3 with an under-fuselage mounted bomb rack ETC 501 for carriage of 500 kg of bombs (1x500 kg, 2x250 kg or 4x50 kg on the ER4 adapter) or an external drop tank of 300 liters capacity for long range fighters. Some planes used only for fighter operations (without bomb racks) had a reduced armament by removal of wing mounted MG FF cannons, which was not reflected in a designation."
Look's like AH's FW-190 A-5 could be good substitute for A-3.
[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Staga ]
-
Couple links: http://www.warships1.com/W-hist/HSII_Dieppe.htm (http://www.warships1.com/W-hist/HSII_Dieppe.htm) http://www.rpi.edu/~fiscap/history_files/dieppe.htm (http://www.rpi.edu/~fiscap/history_files/dieppe.htm)