UPDATE III

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Denniss

Just for Info:
The K-4 with 4-bladed Dünnblattpropeller (thin blade prop) reached 728 km/h, the standard K-4 with 3-bladed prop the given 715 km/h.

British war test reports should always taken with a grain of salt, they often used crash-landed and repaired aircraft for their test or used this test data and interpolating it to a newer version (the famous Bf 109 F-2 with dodgy engine interpolated to F-4 with stronger engine (they knew of) and prop with wider blades (they didn't knew of)).

What I don't like with the R6 babies is the very high loss in MVR, probably 1 (maybe two) point too much, but a really low loss of climb rate. AFAIK these two MG 151/20 with installation and ammo weighted about 150 to 200 kg each and this should affect climbrate somewhat higher.
Here's a late-war british test report of a G-6/U2 with R6 package (as noted as two 20 m guns in underwing gondolas, clearly visible in the pics). Especially interesting are the range tables showing the Spits as really short-legged, even with a 90 imp gallon drop tank not reaching the G-6 with 66 imp gallon drop tank

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ ... tical.html

well, again, since I am not using the so called max climb rate for the clean model, I do not think the dirty model is that much slower in the climb (but to be honest, really good info that you can use on the 109 is HARD to find, 386 MPH for every model is standard)

I disagree with the MRV loss too, but that was Gray G's design (in fact, his drop was 7, I made it 5 and then made it stardard thoughout all models)


hmmm, I think there is something very wrong with that stat sheet, they giving the 109 a 1 hour and 20 minutes extra range with a 66 gallon tank ?

most combat reports from the pilots state the 109 and 190 pretty much had a hour of fuel

I think who ever was writting that report was smoking something before it's time

[Denniss]

I assume these pilot reports include some 10 or so minutes of combat with increased fuel usage and/or some minutes reserve. Also with drop tank cruise speed was a little slower resulting in a somewhat different endurance (321 mph without and 305 mph with drop tank, miles divided by flight hours).

Another thing looking somewhat strange is the high mvr rating for the G-14. The G-14 was nothing special, basically a late-production G-6 with the wooden tail and MW-50 as standard. It may be a little different if you intended to use the G-14/AS, but then it should be named as such. If the G-5 is intended to use the  DB 605AS engine then it should be renamed to G-5/AS (there were several other G-5 with DB 605A engine and GM-1 injection and also recon variants). Also missing is some loss in max alt for the R6 cannon birds, remember the extra weight they carry.

Also the Fw 190A block needs some further digging, the A-8 was known to be heavier and slower than the earlier ones (AFAIK the A-5 was the fastest until the A-9 with the stronger engine came to life in 1944), max alt should also be affected. The A-8 is often reported with ~640 km/h compared to the 660 km/h of the A-5.

[fochinell]

RAF, right now, we have a ADGB HQ that is attached to the VIIIth and one that is attached to the IXth, that have some units that will fly Escourt with the US, other then that, the rest are locked into flying with just there own units

I'd definitely vote for interchangeable escorts for the future, if possible. FC, 2nd TAF and 9th AF fighter units should all be available to escort the 8th AF, maybe va a filter screen which allows selection/deselection of available escort forces. But this sounds like an executable issue to me.

Campaigns

A extra, longer campaign starting from 17th August '42 would be cool in my opinion - starting on the date of the first 8th AF raid. The relevant North African airfields for Operation Torch are all pretty much there - well a starting minimum, at any rate. Just an idea. Or maybe starting from the first 8th raid on Germany in January 1943, but otherwise with the same setup (North Africa, then Sicily, first escorts arriving for the 8th AF). The lack of available LW units should make this more of a diversion/distraction campaign in the ETO, with cunning moves paying off and allowing unescorted forces to go deep into German airspace... if they're lucky....

(I would really like to revamp a what if campaign)

Good idea. Although the Meteor III, Vampire and P-80 all had pretty limited range as escort fighters, and so the LW will benefit proportionately more from the creation of a sandpit to play with the rarer types.

A further mad idea from the old board - how about making Allied production changeable? I 'm not too bothered about this (the political problems behind ending P-39, P-40 and Hurricane II production earlier than 1944, for example, were historically insoluable) - but it is something others have raised before.

alot of the numbers for what a lot of the planes could do, they never reached

Precisely. I agree with your perspective 100% here. Using the Rate of Climb to altitude is also a better idea than using maximum rate of climb at one specific altitude as well.

After this uncharacteristic agreement, normal whingeing will resume shortly.

[Hard Sarge]

109's
 
my basic point of view on the late models, is that they should really degrade, instead of improve,  (the G10 was better then the G6, but) the G14 was just a model to get all the improves made to the G6 into one and the same model, only that didn't even work, with the G14 being different then each other
 
a lot of reports I have read on the K4 was it was pretty much a lead slead, it was fast, it could climb and it had powerful guns, and for a hit and run plane it was good, other then that, it was in trouble
 
but so saying, Gary G's designs, the MRV is not just turn rate
 
and if I make the G10 have a MRV of 34 and the G14 a 32 and a K4 a 30, who is going to build them, you end up with no game
 
(one odd fact, the K4 has the best range of any of the 109s, totally different then what the game had before)
 
info on the true speeds of alot of these planes is shaky to say the least, like the FW, while each model got more guns and more armor, they also got more engine, and a lot of the docs and specs still give each model the same numbers, also, don't forget the A8 was a true fighter, the R7/R8 were the ones with the added armor plating
 
and over all, none of these numbers are totally set in stone
 
if I find a better source that I feel I can trust, I will make changes

[BigDuke66]

ORIGINAL: fochinell
Campaigns

A extra, longer campaign starting from 17th August '42 would be cool in my opinion - starting on the date of the first 8th AF raid. The relevant North African airfields for Operation Torch are all pretty much there - well a starting minimum, at any rate. Just an idea. Or maybe starting from the first 8th raid on Germany in January 1943, but otherwise with the same setup (North Africa, then Sicily, first escorts arriving for the 8th AF). The lack of available LW units should make this more of a diversion/distraction campaign in the ETO, with cunning moves paying off and allowing unescorted forces to go deep into German airspace... if they're lucky....

Starting the campaign in 1942 sounds really good. Gives the whole campaign a little foreplay to the big things that start in 1943. Would also be a good starting point because the player hasn't that much to do and can get easier into the game.

[Nicholas Bell]

I too will chime in and say that a 1942 start would be terrific. Although the historical targets where mostly Uboat pens, the player shouldn't forced to follow that path (or maybe one should - but that would require more code work that just changing database stuff).

January 1943 would be okay too as it was the "official" start of the strategic bomber offense. Not sure why GG picked 1 Aug in both USAAF and BTR - it marks what? The Hamburg raids had just ended. Schweinfurt/Regensburg was 2 weeks away. It appears to be arbitrary without an historican basis - at least that I can think of.

[Hard Sarge]

BTR starts on the 17th of Aug ?
 
you may have them mixed up with time
 
42 ? wow you guys like pain, 2 years before you can do anything ?
 
now, I think the MED would be more fun and interesting then it is in BTR
 
but your plane models and choices are going to be pretty bad
 
and I would hate to see what the AI would try to do as the Allies, it can make some really bonehead moves in late 44, when it got all the power it needs
 
over all, I am blocked by a number of NDA's from here and other places, so even offering ideas or sujections, could be seen as saying too much (and now, don't read anything into that) 
 
but over all, I would have to say, to have a 42 or a 41 campaign, I think this engine is a bit too long in the tooth, we would need land combat, more detailed and controllable then is in BTR (to try and add it, means a whole lot of recodeing, more like a new game system)(plus in BoB and BTR, everything links to everything else, so I do not think we could just do a subprogram and add it in)
 
also, in BoB, while the GB do have a Off force, it is nowhere near what the GE has, so you can set them up to be on the defence and let the GE pound away, and pretty much by late 43 you can say the same about the GE, in 41 or 42, you need a duel turn system, you need ships and you need supplies, supply lines, you have both of those you need subs
 
way too much to abstract, but it could be done
 
you need a new OOB, which would not be too bad, as you could just delay a lot of BTR that is already there, but major recoding for the HQ's and the later changes
 
if anything, I really think, this may be a down the road project and a iffy one at that
 
we got to get this one done first and it has to be liked and played
 
(I like it, I can't wait to be able to "play" it instead of run tests though it all the time)
 
[:-]don't get me thinking, Harley don't like me when I am thinking[:-]

[fochinell]

42 ? wow you guys like pain, 2 years before you can do anything ?

It is the journey as much as the arrival, Grasshopper.

now, I think the MED would be more fun and interesting then it is in BTR
but your plane models and choices are going to be pretty bad

Keeping German production low by staggering factory arrivals would help. If a '42 replacement program was possible, all you'd have to do would be to produce large numbers of Spit V's, Hurri II's and P-40E's and F's, with a smattering of P-39D's, P-38Fs's and Spit IXC's, while the Axis would be limited by having fewer LW units (to minimise the superiority of the 109G and 190A) and by being forced to use the Italians extensively in North Africa.

The AI will make some crass errors, but it does that in the '43-45 campaign anyway. I take your point about the engine, but I reckon it would still have some mileage to run like BTR is now - Torch could replicate the invasion of Italy (Vichy units disband), and the German side is on the defensive from Alamein through Torch, into Tunisia. The OB would be tedious, but do-able (switching FC and 8th AF units to Torch is the only real biggie I can think of); the big command changes would only really be moving the 9th AF from Africa to the UK in mid-1943, which was an HQ change with no units. Otherwise, you can run things with the 8th AF, 12th AF, FC, 2TAF, 205 Group pretty much as they are, with MAC absorbing RAF Eastern Command (the RAF contribution to Torch).

if anything, I really think, this may be a down the road project and a iffy one at that
we got to get this one done first and it has to be liked and played

Sure. Just bouncing some madness around.

[fochinell]

42 ? wow you guys like pain, 2 years before you can do anything ?

It is the journey as much as the arrival, Grasshopper.

now, I think the MED would be more fun and interesting then it is in BTR
but your plane models and choices are going to be pretty bad

Keeping German production low by staggering factory arrivals would help. If a '42 replacement program was possible, all you'd have to do would be to produce large numbers of Spit V's, Hurri II's and P-40E's and F's, with a smattering of P-39D's, P-38Fs's and Spit IXC's, while the Axis would be limited by having fewer LW units (to minimise the superiority of the 109G and 190A) and by being forced to use the Italians extensively in North Africa.

The AI will make some crass errors, but it does that in the '43-45 campaign anyway. I take your point about the engine, but I reckon it would still have some mileage to run like BTR is now - Torch could replicate the invasion of Italy (Vichy units disband), and the German side is on the defensive from Alamein through Torch, into Tunisia. The OB would be tedious, but do-able (switching FC and 8th AF units to Torch is the only real biggie I can think of); the big command changes would only really be moving the 9th AF from Africa to the UK in mid-1943, which was an HQ change with no units. Otherwise, you can run things with the 8th AF, 12th AF, FC, 2TAF, 205 Group pretty much as they are, with MAC absorbing RAF Eastern Command (the RAF contribution to Torch).

if anything, I really think, this may be a down the road project and a iffy one at that
we got to get this one done first and it has to be liked and played

Sure. Just bouncing some madness around.

[petgod1]

I would like to see the 2 games combined! But starting with the BoF then you fight the BOB.

In 41 the Allies "lean in to France", Rubharbs and the like, whilst the Axis could continue BOB in 41 depending on results in 40 and other areas. Then you can move into 43 and onwards as per the old BTR.

The Med would initially be fought in Greece and N. Africa, and Malta then move to the battle for Sicily and onward.

With the 39 start and running through to VE day you can fight the entire war with Bomber Command, this would also greatly enhance Bomber Commands contribution to the effort with all the early (39-43) trials and screw ups.

All the bases would change hands in France and N Africa when relevant.

I know this is unlikely but it would be lovely to see! A kind of WITP for the air war in Europe.

[Hard Sarge]

be quiet
 
nobody knows about that one yet
 
 
 
 

[petgod1]

OOPS!

Sorry mate! [:D]

[AmiralLaurent]

In fact it would be fun to have the possibility to both attack and defend (like in WITP) at the same time. During most of the BoB period, RAF bombers also flew, often without escort, and suffered serious losses. In a great number of days, RAF bomber losses were higher than those of fighters.

Same in BTR period, German bombers and fighter-bombers were unable to do much to stop the Allied, but nevertheless were able to hit hard sometimes.

[George Patton]

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

In fact it would be fun to have the possibility to both attack and defend (like in WITP) at the same time. During most of the BoB period, RAF bombers also flew, often without escort, and suffered serious losses. In a great number of days, RAF bomber losses were higher than those of fighters.

Same in BTR period, German bombers and fighter-bombers were unable to do much to stop the Allied, but nevertheless were able to hit hard sometimes.

I agree. It should be fun to dispose of bombers for both parts in both campaign.

[Hard Sarge]

Roger and agree, only our engine is not really set up to do so

we had some ideas and plans on how we could still add in Transports and Bombers (but Harley thinks I am nutts and don't see why we should waste the time )

LOL, in the Med, there was a bombing raid on the Allies, that was so bad, it was called the 2nd Pearl Harbor

that raid is also part of a triva question, when and where was the only time posion gas was released during WWII

again, everybody wonders where there are so many nightfighters in the MED, reason was, they needed them !

so, over all, not sure what we could do, other then make them targets for the attacker, seeing how our engine does work

[fochinell]

LOL, in the Med, there was a bombing raid on the Allies, that was so bad, it was called the 2nd Pearl Harbor

that raid is also part of a triva question, when and where was the only time posion gas was released during WWII

Bari, 2nd December 1943 - 14 merchant ships sunk, 3 sunk and later salvaged, with another 7 damaged - the worst losses in port since PH.

[Hard Sarge]

dat the one

caught a lot of ships in port/dock area, lot of ships were docked to other ships, so damage to one and fire would spead to others

forget all the details right now, but one of the ships had a load of posion gas on it (just in case) and the fires and fighting, released some of it

a nasty little clean up during and afterward, as "nobody" knew at the time what was aboard the ship

[petgod1]

HS

So is that a no to a combined game then? Never gonna see the light of day?

[Hard Sarge]

for right now, there is not going to be a game that goes from BoB and carries on into BTR

now, the both games are going to be playable from one game, but if you start BoB, you will not get to BTR

will we ever get it to work ?, I really can not even guess

[petgod1]

Ok and thanks.

Damn shame though. Surely they can use the WITP game engine?

But until then i will live in hope.