"Pantelleria, 1943" scenario-design topic

[KCDitto]

Yes sir, I accept the challenge.

Further comment: There has been a lot of great discussion in this thread, although some has been combative, it shows the care and passion the player base involved has for these events. I am fine with the plane set as is, including the two extra spits. 

I am really looking forward to working with and against such knowledgeable players.

Lets get to sign up, forums and setting up our perspective strategies.

AXIS CO has spoken, so let roll with it. 

[Vudu15]

So be it...

Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk

[puller]

No, the raids on Malta were over before the 205 was introduced.

No...That Dnieper scenario and another one...I though you and I had the C205 squad during them...

[SEseph]

AXIS CO has spoken, so let roll with it.

AH, so the enforcer comes out to demand 'Yes Men!'

I'm going to fight for the ideas I feel valid and I'd expect no less from anyone else, even a side CO. If they want a Yes Man, they need to state that before they go. If they want argument because it forces consideration of counter points and forces one to come up with reasonable ideas to counter it and there by allowing a better plan, then they need to accept they won't have Yes Men.

This discussion has changed several things so far and the way I see it, the Axis CO has given in for no clear reason or gain and this was SUPPOSE to be settled before it was posted.

Just saying...

[perdue3]

https://ospreypublishing.com/peter-antill

He is the author of one. I checked his credentials and what not. I always do. It's how to write a good paper. Just the face of it is irrelevant. Gotta dig.

Martin Waligorski

He is a contributor to many historical journals and magazines, as well as the awards his site (the one I referenced). So third party, maybe, but not from any John Doe, these are credentialed men in the field.


This is like telling James McPherson when his gives you a fact about the US War of Rebellion that he has to source his facts or you don't believe him...

McPherson is a popular historian. He, and others like him, should be the ones whose sources are critiqued most heavily. Just because I want to, David McCullough sucks too! Just because he was the head of the AHA doesn't make him an incredible student of history. This is quite off topic, but this is also venturing down my street lol. I am not a popular historian nor do I believe that they deserve Pulitzer Prizes. But, subjectivity aside, this is why I said what I did.

WW2 Weapons site. I looked for an authorship citation, I did not find one. So I checked front page and found this: "All information, data and statistics used in the Web WW2 Weapons had been compiled from a variety of sources and the large, over decades collected, library of the author about military history, WW2 and weapons. Because of those many, unfortunately the additional effort to specify each individual references is too hugh. But this are the savest and most reliable information, which are also constantly updated and improved to the best of knowledge and belief." This disclaimer is alarming to say the least in terms of scholarship.

I can't really fault you for historyofwar.org, it is a great place to start any form of research. However, it is tertiary (sometimes not even scholarly) and only provides a basic foundation of knowledge; not unlike Wikipedia for middle school students.

I have read some of Waligorski's stuff on plastic model sites, history forums, etc. While his works are indeed tertiary on the Spitfire site, I give him more credibility than the other two. It would have been nice if he had cited some sources himself, but oh well. He does use a primary source, but not to prove anything useful in this debate about Spit IX and Spit VIII.

This was fun, I am sorry if I ruffled any feathers. That certainly was not the objective.

I really see no need in adding two Spitfires. We have C.202's and Ju 88's compared to B-26's/B-25's and P-40F's. There is no large advantage for the Axis that justifies adding 2 more of arguably the best plane in the setup.  I will also add that if 6 Spit VIII's or 8 Spit IX's was an option, I would have chosen 6 Spit VIII's. The difference in performance and the advantage is negligible, until you add 2 more.

Cheers, 

[KCDitto]

AH, so the enforcer comes out to demand 'Yes Men!'   WHAT? He agreed to the plane set. NEXT!

I'm going to fight for the ideas I feel valid and I'd expect no less from anyone else, even a side CO. If they want a Yes Man, they need to state that before they go. If they want argument because it forces consideration of counter points and forces one to come up with reasonable ideas to counter it and there by allowing a better plan, then they need to accept they won't have Yes Men.  again WHAT?  was there something else?  Instead of accusations why don't you bring on the next point?

This discussion has changed several things so far and the way I see it, the Axis CO has given in for no clear reason or gain and this was SUPPOSE to be settled before it was posted.  WHAT?  Plane set was discussed ad nauseam  NEXT

Just saying...

[SEseph]

This was fun, I am sorry if I ruffled any feathers. That certainly was not the objective.

You were right to request sources and for this very reason. It allows us to determine the credibility. No feathers ruffled at all!

I really see no need in adding two Spitfires. We have C.202's and Ju 88's compared to B-26's/B-25's and P-40F's. There is no large advantage for the Axis that justifies adding 2 more of arguably the best plane in the setup.  I will also add that if 6 Spit VIII's or 8 Spit IX's was an option, I would have chosen 6 Spit VIII's. The difference in performance and the advantage is negligible, until you add 2 more.

Cheers, 

I wish they would listen to this.



***EDIT*** The Spit 8's have an extra 20-30 minutes of fuel. In this event, that can make a world of difference as well.

[SEseph]

@Ditto

He agreed to the initial plane set too, if you've forgotten so quickly.

My point is that it needs to be left alone, or give us 205s if you want 2 extra Spits. He is wrong not to demand something in return since he ALREADY AGREED the first time around, AS DID THE ALLIED CO. (Do you want it in red?)

And after that naseum we've changed it after 10 pages with no reasonable deal made. It's a bad deal. I'm publicly agreeing with Perdweeb. How much more evidence do you need that this is a bad idea to add 2 more spits?

[Devil 505]

What I do not like is that the change was made to the Spit8 in the initial writeup without discussion. The majority of posters on this thread agreed that the Spit9 was the better choice - without the stipulation that there should be more of them. And then Brooke comes in and gives a ballocks choice of 8 Spit 9's or 6 spit 8's.

It's this kind of dictatorship that motivated me to sit out the last one - really starting to reconsider my desire to participate in this one.

[TWCAxew]

@SEseph

The extra spits where to compansate that we allied will be flying slower spitfires than would be fair and the lack of feul the spit 9s would hold. Overall the axis planes are better with the exception for the c202.

I as allied XO have suggested to give the axis C205s. This was decided to be unfair and in historically. It's really give and take. I am not sure why you are attacking JeffN, other than a reason to disagree. The planes seem to be balanced somewhat this way with still dominant axis planes.

DutchVII

[TWCAxew]

What I do not like is that the change was made to the Spit8 in the initial writeup without discussion. The majority of posters on this thread agreed that the Spit9 was the better choice - without the stipulation that there should be more of them. And then Brooke comes in and gives a ballocks choice of 8 Spit 9's or 6 spit 8's.

It's this kind of dictatorship that motivated me to sit out the last one - really starting to reconsider my desire to participate in this one.

I think it's more a suggestion than anything else. Nothing is set in stone yet. If most axis are feeling this way, I don't mind taking less spits as XO. I have convidece my guys will make do with whatever is given to us.

That being said. I do think there would be a better balance with 2 more spit 9s.

DutchVII

[Devil 505]

If you reread the thread, Dutch, you'll find that before this post by Brooke:

OK, with all that under consideration, here's what I propose.

We change allies from Spit 8's to Spit 9's.  We give the allies 2 more Spits.

This accounts for Spit 8 being faster on WEP, turning better, climbing better, and having 20 minutes more time aloft compared to Spit 9, and for 109G's being slightly better than P-38G's. 

JeffN, Weiser, Swareiam, and Ditto -- what say you?

If you don't like that, how about 4 more Spits?

that the only mention of adding any more spits was by Weiser - but not for balance or accuracy but to entice more players to attend.

Gentleman,
 I have done research on Pantelleria and both Spit 8 and 9's were there, they were part of the 31FG with the 307,308 and 309 squad. I'm the one who is asking to increase the numbers for the event. My reasoning behind it is that there are a lot of guys that can not participate in all scenario's, but if we can get a lot of guys willing to commit to a couple of Saturday's then we can schedule them in when they can make it, If they show on a unscheduled day than they will be reassigned to another squad. This would mean a little more work for the CO and GL, but anytime we try to increase the numbers the better. Once they experience in an event, than they may be more likely to show when not scheduled just to have fun. We all know that most would rather fly a fighter that they like, that's why I'm suggesting increasing fighters squad's first and get the bug going.
  By no means am I trying to make thing's unfair when it comes to the event, just trying to get more people interested, and it may be a good way to start.
 Other than that I'm OK with the write up and will go with what the event committee approves.

General Carl"weiser"Spaatz
CO Allies

The course of the discussion was not leading to adding more spits as compensation for a performance deficiency in the P-39G. This was soely Brookes idea and he decided on it being implemented with no discussion outside the CM's and CO's.

The consensus of the posters in this thread was that the the Spit9 was both better for balance and accuracy and that 6, and 6 only,  was the right amount for either.

I believe that there are better solutions for the P-38 problem, but I guess that the discussion has been decided for us.

[SEseph]

The extra spits where to compansate that we allied will be flying slower spitfires than would be fair and the lack of feul the spit 9s would hold. Overall the axis planes are better with the exception for the c202.

First off, The CM's thought the setup was fine initially. Very balanced in THEIR words. Now suddenly it's not. Devil, Perdweeb, myself, others, we have accumulated a LARGE amount of experience. We want a fair game. Not an easy win. Easy win would be DEMANDING 205's WITHOUT 8's and REQUIRING Spit 5's! We want it as written, with 6 Spit 9's.. no other changes. Load up your 38's, train now instead of expecting cohesion and expertise on day one... make it work.

I as allied XO have suggested to give the axis C205s. This was decided to be unfair and in historically. It's really give and take. I am not sure why you are attacking JeffN, other than a reason to disagree. The planes seem to be balanced somewhat this way with still dominant axis planes.

As Allied XO, it is your duty to inform your CO that he agreed to the write-up; one that he immediately began making demands on when it was publicly posted.

[Vudu15]

You guys had the planes set then changed it. Why?

Did weiser and Jeff agree to the plane set before this was released to us? If so why did it change?

Where did this hostage situation come from with the extra 2 spits?

I have to agree with Devil on this one, but I said I would lead and I believe I have a lot to offer to the command team here as well as newer pilots and possible GLs/XOs . I'm here to tag US planes, as many as I can but that doesn't mean we have to take bad deals plane wise. and I'm sick of the restrictions and helicopter mom attitudes of the CM Team over the last few events in regards to the COs on each side. Allies would have gotten exactly what they wanted if some of us hadn't fought it and I bet he would have gotten 2 squads of spits again if some of us hadn't fought back. I was never for the 205s being added by the way. Why are we as folks flying for one side getting so much kickback (I can understand me) on just what should be a fair planeset?

DUTCH
I know that with a Spit8 I can fly past Pantelleria fight for 15 to 20 mins and fly home without being worried about fuel state(and the 8 has a decided advantage with WEP). In an FSO with a Spit9 I shot down 5 Ju88s and got home on fumes I had to watch my fuel the whole time which balances the 9 against it being a serious force multiplier against the axis. If we brought our 24 fighters(now 26) against your 24 you have us in fuel endurance, over all ammo capacity(even with gondolas) and then were are bringing 202s which the odds are will get one or two kills to more than likely the loss of the whole six planes. Leave the 205s out they were never a real option at any point. See if I had six of me yeah not an issue but I wont have six of me I'll have me and X number of guys who either have limited time or have barely flown the 109 and will be lost to noncombat issues(compression, landings, fuel and not conserving ammo) The 38s will lose some to compression but you also have the ability to place folks who are uncomfortable in 38s in P40s remember that this P40 has a merlin not an Allison motor.

[TWCAxew]

Since I am on holiday in Greece right now I did not have directly talked to weiser about anything related to the planes. All I know is that weiser had asked for more spits. Which Brooke suggested to in the last page. We where in the understanding that we would get the spit 9 in the beginning.

Since I know Weiser pretty well, I think it's safe to say he would agree with anything that is the most fair for everyone. Whether we get more spits or not. I do not know of any agreements between JeffN and Weiser.

For now I am gonna join my gf on the boat and enjoy the sun with a gentle breeze.

Whatever you guys think is right I would say we roll with, as long everyone think it's fair. {$}

Ps: my squad in Kuban flying bf110s had the most kills and highest bombing score from all squad's. It's more about execution than what planes you get.

Edit: the ps was directed at this: "In an FSO with a Spit9 I shot down 5 Ju88s and got home on fumes I had to watch my fuel the whole time which balances the 9 against it being a serious force multiplier against the axis" I think it's pretty irrelevant the same thing can be done with any other plane. Especially if you make a good approach and have no enemy fighters around.

Also I have full confidence in Perdue's, spikes and devils experience and knowledge. It's not like I am trying to dismiss anything you say.  On the contrary i take it by heart. So if you say it should be this way or another I will fully support it.

DutchVII