Author Topic: Kursk?  (Read 3182 times)

Offline mipoikel

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3521
      • http://www.llv32.org
Kursk?
« on: November 17, 2008, 04:18:51 AM »
Im sure this is asked before but why not?

I am a spy!

Offline Anaxogoras

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7072
Re: Kursk?
« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2008, 01:05:31 PM »
Our planeset for everything Eastern Front is woefully inadequate on the Russian side.
gavagai
334th FS


RPS for Aces High!

Offline Nefarious

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15858
Re: Kursk?
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2008, 02:33:36 PM »
Well if you include a couple Lend Lease Aircraft, you have a pretty good plane set. The GVs would have a good role.

The Crucial key to the event that is missing is actually the terrain.
There must also be a flyable computer available for Nefarious to do FSO. So he doesn't keep talking about it for eight and a half hours on Friday night!

Offline Anaxogoras

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7072
Re: Kursk?
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2008, 06:02:58 PM »
Well if you include a couple Lend Lease Aircraft, you have a pretty good plane set.

We've done it in FSO and the planeset is nothing to crow about.  The near total reliance on substitutions, which are always dubious, is why a lot of us never bothered with Rangoon.
gavagai
334th FS


RPS for Aces High!

Offline splitatom

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 765
Re: Kursk?
« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2008, 06:58:50 PM »
now it is better but could use some use
snowey flying since tour 78

Offline Husky01

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4844
Re: Kursk?
« Reply #5 on: November 18, 2008, 12:17:01 AM »
now it is better but could use some use

 :huh
BearKats
9GIAP VVS RKKA

Offline Newman5

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 464
Re: Kursk?
« Reply #6 on: November 18, 2008, 12:18:26 AM »
:huh

Too much radiation from splitting his own atoms??   :lol
"Hello, Newman."

Offline Brooke

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15570
      • http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/
Re: Kursk?
« Reply #7 on: November 18, 2008, 01:20:47 AM »
I'd like an eastern-front scenario in here within the next several scenarios -- I think it would be quite fun.  Maybe start with something where we can have some La-5's in there; maybe something later with some La-7's and Yak 9's?  Nothing definite at all yet, but it would be nice for variety to have some eastern-front action.

Offline Motherland

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8110
Re: Kursk?
« Reply #8 on: November 18, 2008, 03:21:11 PM »
The problem with Kursk would be that the only domestic Russian fighter that we have that may have been available at that time is the Yakovlev 9T, and, IIRC, even that would be in limited numbers at the tail end...
Sure, we could put in lend-lease fighters, but it kind of sucks having a planeset where only a few would be domestic.

Offline SuBWaYCH

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1730
Re: Kursk?
« Reply #9 on: November 20, 2008, 07:27:18 PM »
Well since of the lack of aircraft, if a Eastern Front scenario was done, may I suggest a "around the horn" of some of the more major battles fought?

Frame 1: Leningrad (Germany Attacking, USSR Defending the city). Early 1942.
Frame 2: Northern Finland (Sides battling for objectives).Mid 1943
Frame 3: Hungary and the battle for Budapest (USSR attacking, Germany defending the city). Early/Mid 1944
Frame 4: A "what if" depending on either sides success. USSR victory means an attack and possible capture of Helsinki. German victory results for a counter attack in Hungary. Mid 1945 for German victory, Early 1945 for USSR victory.

Plane sets:
Frame 1 -
USSR: P-40B, P-39D, P-40E, Yak-1 (if we get it)
Germany/Finland: 109F, Ju-87, Ju-88, 110C, F4F (Brewster)

Tanks -
USSR: T-34/75
Germany: Panzer IV (fill in)

Frame 2 -
USSR: P-40E, La-5N, Yak-9T, P-39Q, Boston III
Germany: 109G-2, 110G-2, FW-190A5, 109F-4, Ju-88

Tanks -
USSR: T-34/85, M-3, M16
Germany: Panzer IV, SDK, Ostwind

Frame 3 -
USSR: La-5N, Yak-9T, P-39Q's, Boston III's
Germany: 109G-6, FW-190F-8, FW-190A-8, 109G-14's

Tanks -
USSR: T-34/75, T-34/85 (limited numbers)
Germany: Panzer IV, Tiger I (limited numbers)

Frame 4 - Soviet Victory:
USSR:  A-20G, Yak-9U, La-7, Yak-3 (limited numbers, if we get it)
Germany: 109K-4, 190D-9, 109G-14, Ta-152 (limited numbers)

Frame 4 - German Victory:
USSR: Yak-9U, La-7, Yak-3 (if we get it)
Germany: AR-234's, 190D-9's, 109K-4's, Me-262's (extreme limited numbers)

Tanks (for both outcomes):
USSR: T-34/85, M16
Germany: Tiger I, Ostwind


Thoughts?

I could start coming up with some rules and try and get this on the table if the CM's like it.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2008, 07:48:07 PM by SuBWaYCH »
Axis C.O. for Battle of the Dnieper, Winter '43

Air superiority is a condition for all operations, at sea, on land, and in the air. - Air Marshal Arthur Tedder

364th Chawks

Offline Motherland

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8110
Re: Kursk?
« Reply #10 on: November 20, 2008, 07:46:04 PM »
I'm pretty sure the Luftwaffe never operated Brewster Buffaloes, the La5FN would be too late for Frame 2, and the Fw190A8 would be available by early/mid '44 for the Luftwaffe frame 3. Other than that... that sounds pretty cool! The lack of early war Russian fighters still kinda sucks though.

Offline SuBWaYCH

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1730
Re: Kursk?
« Reply #11 on: November 20, 2008, 07:49:08 PM »
Modified, also added it would be the Germans and Finland in frame 1.

I"m going to start flowing out some basic rules.
Axis C.O. for Battle of the Dnieper, Winter '43

Air superiority is a condition for all operations, at sea, on land, and in the air. - Air Marshal Arthur Tedder

364th Chawks

Offline Ponyace

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
Re: Kursk?
« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2008, 08:18:04 PM »
I'm pretty sure the Luftwaffe never operated Brewster Buffaloes, the La5FN would be too late for Frame 2, and the Fw190A8 would be available by early/mid '44 for the Luftwaffe frame 3. Other than that... that sounds pretty cool! The lack of early war Russian fighters still kinda sucks though.
True, motherland. The LW never operated the Brewster Buffalo. HOWEVER, The finnish air force (FAF) did. They were very successful, too
Gatore
Formerly "Ponyace"

Offline SuBWaYCH

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1730
Re: Kursk?
« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2008, 08:56:17 PM »
Ok, so I have the units, side percentages, and unit count in place. It would be:

15 units per side (14 full sized, 1 about half strength). 154 total pilots for each side ( :O )
Each full sized unit contains 10 pilots.

There are 10 fighter groups per side (2 of which are Attack units, but double as fighter groups), with 2 bomber groups and 2 groups of tanks, and one CO's personal unit.

Now this is HUGE scale, but I think it should work.

I have the German units completed. Nows its on to the USSR units.  :cool:
Axis C.O. for Battle of the Dnieper, Winter '43

Air superiority is a condition for all operations, at sea, on land, and in the air. - Air Marshal Arthur Tedder

364th Chawks

Offline Anaxogoras

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7072
Re: Kursk?
« Reply #14 on: November 20, 2008, 11:08:46 PM »
Again, why not focus our time and resources on scenarios for which we have a near complete planeset?
gavagai
334th FS


RPS for Aces High!