Sept. FSO:To Win the Winter Sky

[Guppy35]

Looking at some Luftwaffe unit histories.  jG26 had a. Second group transitioning to the D9 in November December.  JG300 was 109G6 and 109G10 along with 190A8.  JG1 was the same.  I don't think the D9 operated as often and in numbers as some folks would like.

[Tank-Ace]

Yeah... K4 shouldn't be so heavily limited. We have NO high altitude fighters save for it and the Ta-152, which will not be in the frame.

Its actually a decent stand-in, as well.

[Squire]

No prob we all dig around with what we have on hand. I like kicking the OOBs around as long as its civil. Folks often come up with good info as well and no matter how much a subject has been hashed over its surprising what new info sometimes comes out. As fas as what I like to see in FSO we go by "squadron strength in combat" dates. That said its still a design call. Of course production and test flown (or test driven?) dates are important as they give clues to #s and deployment info so of course they are valuable to see especially when info is sketchy.

[j500ss]

Although allies do need a victory its been a while.

  I love this statement, and in my personal honest opinion.  The allies winning in this setup could be a tough one.   I think a frame or 2 is a decent bet, but would not say it's a lock to win the total for the month.

I personally believe the "dedicated axis" squads somewhat skew the results.  Majority of said squads are Luftwaffe oriented.   I have absolutely ZERO issue with that fact, but a reality is this. When it comes to prop fighters, you basically have 2 base models.   Your either a 109 or a 190 squad.  Yep!  I am well aware that the said variants among those 2 base models can and do in fact differ greatly in a number of ways. However you are all in a nutshell,  quite adept with either plane, and again that is cool and fine.   

Now look at the other side for a second,  P-38 guys in mustangs, jug jockeys in spits, blue plane guys in P-38's.   It can be quite a mixed bag, and we won't even bring up bombers.   So in the end, so far as FSO goes I think you have an edge up front when it is a Luftwaffe vs VVS, USAAF, or RAF.

Someone brought up the need for more high alt fighters.   Bomber alt cap in this setup is 22k.  Plays right into the K4, D9, and G14 pretty much spot on, unless of course I am reading the speed charts all wrong.  Add in you have some 262's, which should be primary bomber killers.

Personally I'm good with it,  I think it makes a lot of guys put up a little extra effort for that given night,  and I suspect some extra thinking into tactics and planning on the allied side.

If I had a personal beef concerning the allied plane set, it would simply be we are forced to use too many bombers for the ground targets assigned. 4 planes can flatten hangers on a large airfield with no problem, but due to the credible force rules,  you have to basically send 10.  Again, it is what it is and I'm cool with, just for the simple reason of .........Wait for it   ............................ ..............Playability 

In the end I don't too much worry about what we fly or for what side, because change is always good ( so they say )  we were axis last month and had a blast carrying out our assignments      .  That is what it really should be all about.

See you all in the skies over Germany
   
   J

     

[CAP1]

  I love this statement, and in my personal honest opinion.  The allies winning in this setup could be a tough one.   I think a frame or 2 is a decent bet, but would not say it's a lock to win the total for the month.

I personally believe the "dedicated axis" squads somewhat skew the results.  Majority of said squads are Luftwaffe oriented.   I have absolutely ZERO issue with that fact, but a reality is this. When it comes to prop fighters, you basically have 2 base models.   Your either a 109 or a 190 squad.  Yep!  I am well aware that the said variants among those 2 base models can and do in fact differ greatly in a number of ways. However you are all in a nutshell,  quite adept with either plane, and again that is cool and fine.   

Now look at the other side for a second,  P-38 guys in mustangs, jug jockeys in spits, blue plane guys in P-38's.   It can be quite a mixed bag, and we won't even bring up bombers.   So in the end, so far as FSO goes I think you have an edge up front when it is a Luftwaffe vs VVS, USAAF, or RAF.

Someone brought up the need for more high alt fighters.   Bomber alt cap in this setup is 22k.  Plays right into the K4, D9, and G14 pretty much spot on, unless of course I am reading the speed charts all wrong.  Add in you have some 262's, which should be primary bomber killers.

Personally I'm good with it,  I think it makes a lot of guys put up a little extra effort for that given night,  and I suspect some extra thinking into tactics and planning on the allied side.

If I had a personal beef concerning the allied plane set, it would simply be we are forced to use too many bombers for the ground targets assigned. 4 planes can flatten hangers on a large airfield with no problem, but due to the credible force rules,  you have to basically send 10.  Again, it is what it is and I'm cool with, just for the simple reason of .........Wait for it   ............................ ..............Playability 

In the end I don't too much worry about what we fly or for what side, because change is always good ( so they say )  we were axis last month and had a blast carrying out our assignments      .  That is what it really should be all about.

See you all in the skies over Germany
   
   J

     

 this looks like a pretty good summation. 
 i will also note.......upon looking a little deeper, it seems that the me410 wasn't operational past july '44, so i took it out.

 also note on the jets, just in case it was missed when reading the writeup........me262 MUST land at one of the three bases they can launch from. if they land anywhere else, they will be considered lost, and not used in subsequent frames. all other aircraft may land at any of their respective bases for safe landing.

[Bino]

...
I don't think the D9 operated as often and in numbers as some folks would like.

^ Agree. 

From what I've read, the "Dora" was handed out in small bunches to a handful of Jagdgeschwadern, and was not much used beyond the Stab flights, with very few exceptions.

This web site seems to concur, in the Flugzeugbestand pages: http://www.ww2.dk/

[Krusty]

Bino, that's not the case at all. They were common enough that they were being used for ground attack duties. Some even had 4x50kg bomb racks under the wings and jabo codes on the fuselage.

I think you may be mixing up Ta152s and Doras. 152s were pretty exclusive. There were more Doras built than pilots available to fly them. That's not in question. It was simply a matter of dates that was in question.

Tank Ace: The K4 isn't too great a standing for G-6/AS and G-14/AS for several reasons. Not the least of which is variety of weapons and top speed and climb -- the K-4 climbs better and is faster, but is limited to only one guns package, whereas a G-6/G-14 would have 20mm hub options, WGr21 options, gunpod options... All of which would also affect the climb and speed negatively compared to the clean K-4. It's got a similar full throttle height, but other than that we really need another model for AH use in these situations.

j500ss: the G-14 power dropoff is very sharp above 16k. The 190D dropoff is not as steep but still rather sharp at about 18K. At 22K, a G-14 is only a few mph faster than a G-6 with WEP. It's no faster without WEP than the 1942-era G-6 we have. Exact same engine but with MW50 (which is only better at lower alts for the G-14). 262s are a nonentity for this one. They're hamstrung. While they're still climbing out with an abyssmally slow climb rate, air spawning bombers will already be on their way to target. If they try to position for intercept they will be jumped with a massive alt advantage by every US plane. If they try climbing out away from the action in a "safe" area they'll nearly be off the map before they have to turn back and try to get to bombers before they drop -- which will still have tons of US planes much higher waiting to bounce them. 262s have a very limited safety zone, and that's only at maximum speed. P-51s and P-47s (hell, even well flown P-38s) can dive to catch up as long as they have the altitude. Which they will. In short, 262s are a nice toy once in a while, but in this kind of FSO situation they are a novelty and won't change the outcome of a frame.

I believe allies will be hard-pressed to lose this setup. This is the pattern from many previous FSOs as well. The reasons bombers have to stay in groups is because they are too hard to intercept in this game. There isn't enough time to tail chase them, and if they split up or have smaller forces it's much easier to simply miss the main brunt of the bomber fleet when looking for it. The real thing was hundreds of miles long and you had hours to intercept it BEFORE it got to target. The real thing gave you plenty of time and advance warning to know where it was, where the escorts were, and to set up a proper attack. By bundling bomber groups into larger forces you 1) keep the allies together, 2) keep the allied escorts on target more than trying to spread too thin to cover multiple groups, 3) give the axis a coherent target instead of having them scatter to the 4 winds to look for strays, and 4) many other reasons I won't get into.

[CAP1]

re the intercept..........any CIC CAN intercept the bombers before they get to target.

[Krusty]

Any CIC can *PLAN* an intercept. Doesn't mean it happens the way the plan says it should. In fact, most intercept plans are along the lines of "you all wait here, we'll go hunt for the bombers, and call you in when we find them" -- which is the most effective but also the most costly in terms of slamming head-first into escorts and losings tons of attackers in the process. It also leads to the problem of wasting time while the scouts try to find the unknown position of the bombers.

[Tank-Ace]

Someone brought up the need for more high alt fighters.   Bomber alt cap in this setup is 22k.  Plays right into the K4, D9, and G14 pretty much spot on, unless of course I am reading the speed charts all wrong.  Add in you have some 262's, which should be primary bomber killers.

If only the K4 and D9 would make up a sizable portion of our forces, that might be useful. If the G-14 would be capable of something more than about 400mph in the best of cases. And if the 262's wouldn't be made priority #1 targets upon coming within icon range of the bomber stream.

I remember in DGS II, we had a hell of a time with the A-8's needing escort.

Personally I'm good with it,  I think it makes a lot of guys put up a little extra effort for that given night,  and I suspect some extra thinking into tactics and planning on the allied side.

Yes, because parity in performance demands greater effort from us. That doesn't mean we actually benefit from being at a disadvantage.

[j500ss]

If only the K4 and D9 would make up a sizable portion of our forces, that might be useful. If the G-14 would be capable of something more than about 400mph in the best of cases. And if the 262's wouldn't be made priority #1 targets upon coming within icon range of the bomber stream.

I remember in DGS II, we had a hell of a time with the A-8's needing escort.

 Yes, because parity in performance demands greater effort from us. That doesn't mean we actually benefit from being at a disadvantage.

I can see your point in wanting more K4's and D9's.  And sure it would be awesome to have a high alt version of the what was it again?    G-6 I think?   Wish we did, because a lot of posts in this particular forum would become pointless real quick.

Which I now have to ask, how hard would it be to actually make that happen?  I mean we already have a G-6, just needs what?  Some flight and speed reworking, and armament added and modeled.   

About the 262's:  All I would say is this, your thoughts on "priority" and mine are apparently very different.

Your last line talks of parity.  If we look at it from a open perspective, that "parity" was also prevalent in 1944 for real, would you agree?
Allies face parity as well, already stated it actually

CM's are pretty standup bunch, and I am just not really seeing them letting one side mop up the other intentionally.  When I first saw the setup even I went    when I saw the 410 listed.  That has since been changed.   Who knows, maybe in one of the frames you will get more of what you seek.

Maybe allies will have to fly in more numbers of bombers, less fighters......  Who knows right?    It'll all be good I suspect, for everyone   

 

p.s.   Yo Krusty!!  I was using MIL power for my references sir, jus saying   

[CAP1]

If only the K4 and D9 would make up a sizable portion of our forces, that might be useful. If the G-14 would be capable of something more than about 400mph in the best of cases. And if the 262's wouldn't be made priority #1 targets upon coming within icon range of the bomber stream.

I remember in DGS II, we had a hell of a time with the A-8's needing escort.

 Yes, because parity in performance demands greater effort from us. That doesn't mean we actually benefit from being at a disadvantage.

 bold underline section.......you think that's why they're worth so much? it's not. i'll explain when the tour's done.

[Tank-Ace]

bold underline section.......you think that's why they're worth so much? it's not. i'll explain when the tour's done.

No, but then that their value isn't even remotely tied to their fairly great potential against bombers is quite telling.

And j500 was talking about how we had 262's, who's value diminishes greatly once we actually find the bombers.

[perdue3]

Need a little clarification on something. Rules say jets must land at their field of origin. Then they say must land at one of three bases. So which is it?

[CAP1]

Need a little clarification on something. Rules say jets must land at their field of origin. Then they say must land at one of three bases. So which is it?

 one of the three bases. i changed it, and thought i got them both. i'll fix that in the writeup.