AAR for HARD_Sarge

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: AAR for HARD_Sarge

Post by Hard Sarge »

which, if any buddy ever figures out how my mind works, you may notice that after finally getting my hole, most of my raids are where he can see them

now that is going to make him think (what a dummy maybe, but he is going to be thinking)

I would say I am throwing everything but the kicten sink in, but I still got some units resting

Image
Attachments
someoneis..hurting.jpg
someoneis..hurting.jpg (146.83 KiB) Viewed 464 times
Image
User avatar
DuckofTindalos
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: AAR for HARD_Sarge

Post by DuckofTindalos »

I believe the word is DUUUUUCK!!![:D]

Why the differing altitudes for the different raids (15-17K)?
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: AAR for HARD_Sarge

Post by Hard Sarge »

messing with the Flak, messing with the mind

alot of players like to set there planes to patrol first, then intercept from there, if you think the raid is lower or higher, you set your patrol that way

the raids before I went in higher, so if he thinks I am coming in high, he is going to set his patrols to 25-27 and that takes time, which, I got the edge up high, he got the edge in med to low

but, if I want to hit the target, I want to be lower, I want those AFs this turn, so I dropped down some

alot of PBEM is getting the other person to overthink, which this isn't for real, so I am keeping some tricks under my sleave, for the next game
Image
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: AAR for HARD_Sarge

Post by Hard Sarge »

figures, Work came up and Steve is busy, so we are stuck waiting for the next turn to get ran

Image
User avatar
DuckofTindalos
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: AAR for HARD_Sarge

Post by DuckofTindalos »

HS, I assume you're using High Escort, rather than Close? How big of an altitude gap do you put between bombers and fighters?
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: AAR for HARD_Sarge

Post by Hard Sarge »

Depends on the target and what I am trying to do, but

I do use some CE, and then, I put some at 4000, with the stab at 6000 or 7000

if I am using more then one Unit (Ie I try to keep the units togeather, so I,II,III JG 26 will fly at 4000, with Stab/JG26 at 7000) then I will put some at 4000, some at 5000, with others up higher

this is another reason for the different raid alts, if I have them following each other, then I can have a raid at 15000, escourt will be at 19 and 22, followed a few minutes later with a raid at 17000, with there escourt being at 21 and 23, then best if I can follow that, with another raid at 19000, with escort at 23 and 25

now any RAF that comes in level, is going to get bounced, any that tries to come in high on the first raid, still have fighters above it

of course, it takes up a lot of fighters, and is really only good for simi short range raids, and of course, the RAF has to respond

:)

of course, with this follow on idea, they still don't have to hit the same target, they can do a starburst, just as they get to the main target area, and then try to rejoin on the same path back home

when it works, it works great, when it don't, it don't and a lot of work is wasted (don't take long to plot, just wasted resources)




Image
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: AAR for HARD_Sarge

Post by Hard Sarge »

Sorry guys, Real Life has stepped in, so this AAR has to be delayed for a bit


Dang I wanted to see how that last turn worked out !!!

Image
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: AAR for HARD_Sarge

Post by Hard Sarge »

Well since it looks like Steve is going to be busy or out for a while our PBEM game been on hold

so figured I would show some of what I been working on/testing

this is still the BoB41 7 day campaign, think it going to run a bit different now

here are the raids I plotted out for today

Image
Attachments
raids.jpg
raids.jpg (149.23 KiB) Viewed 463 times
Image
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: AAR for HARD_Sarge

Post by Hard Sarge »

one of the testers was saying how useless X Luft was, and how he wants to move it to France, but I think there are some good targets up north, plus, I think they got some worth, as a force in being (of course, that works better with a human)

BUT, so saying, I also did some stuff up north, to make it HARDer on people like me

the results of the raids

Image
Attachments
results.jpg
results.jpg (127.24 KiB) Viewed 463 times
Image
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: AAR for HARD_Sarge

Post by Hard Sarge »

them there Marlets went to town

funny battle, the RAF got off to a great start, then the LW joined the party, but the return trip, was another show for the RAF, then X Luft got into the act

losses for the first day

Image
Attachments
lossesday1.jpg
lossesday1.jpg (102.88 KiB) Viewed 464 times
Image
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: AAR for HARD_Sarge

Post by Hard Sarge »

next to see if the RAF can keep up that kind of pressure

tried to take his eyes away, and end up missing the two most importent sites !!!!

ahhhhh



Image
Attachments
radarcovage.jpg
radarcovage.jpg (175.72 KiB) Viewed 468 times
Image
Denniss
Posts: 9303
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Germany, Hannover (region)

RE: AAR for HARD_Sarge

Post by Denniss »

Hmm, still some problems with aircraft:
A Ju 87 D-1 should not be available in 5/1941 as it was first delivered in 8/1941.
There should be a lot of older Ju 88 A-5 around, the A-4 was more or less brand new and numbers were more limited.
Is there no Bf 109 F-1 around ? Should be available in some numbers (~200 built), the newer F-2 was first delivered in 3/1941. The replacement rate for the F-2 should be pretty high as it was built in ~1300 from 3 to 8/1941. Inbetween the F-4 kicked in with first deliveries in summer 1941.

BTW - was is a Bf 109 E-7/B? This variant did not exist as every standard E-7 was able to carry a bomb, that's why this designation was dropped. The /B was only used on aircraft specifically built or rebuilt for use as fighter-bomber.
WitE dev team - (aircraft data)
WitE 1.08+ dev team (data/scenario maintainer)
WitW dev team (aircraft data, partial data/scenario maintainer)
WitE2 dev team (aircraft data)
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: AAR for HARD_Sarge

Post by Hard Sarge »

you gonna have to give me some leeway here :)

will check on the 87

the Units with the 88, not every plane will be A5 and not every plane would be a A4, I do not want to make Gruppen of one kind and Gruppens of another kind, then I got to set up build rates for each, and then you build up a stock pile of one or the other, and the player will then start tradeing out other models

in BoB, I wanted to show that while the E4 and later E7 were the main model, there we still alot of E1s and E3s around, so to get around that, I have split up Gruppens and some are all flying E1s, others all E3s, that is not how the LW did it, but is the way the game has to do it

(which hopefully, the idea will be, you got enough E4s to rearm a Gruppen, now you can pulls those E3s out of the line, replace that gruppen with E4s, and now a Gruppen of E1s can change over to E3s, by the end of the campaign, most units should have the new models)

if you don't have to use all of the replacements to replace losses !

the info I had for the Ground attack Gruppen was it was being armed with the 109 E7/B, at the same time, that other units started to get it, they were using it in a purely fighter role, I do not want the skies of England filled with 109s armed with bombs, that comes later on, also, most of the gruppen were also setting up there own Jabo Staffels with 109E4/Bs, I don't want to bring in the E4/Bs to the normal fighter Gruppen
Image
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: AAR for HARD_Sarge

Post by Hard Sarge »

lots of stuff on the side going on yesterday, getting and setting up a new fancy keyboard, and what not, so not able to do much for the AAR, just a short and sweet turn, gave most of the boys the day off


and of course, the main raid got grounded by weather, so the two follow up, distraction raids took off first, so losses were heavier then I expected

but I got my targets



Image
Attachments
day2losses.jpg
day2losses.jpg (103.73 KiB) Viewed 468 times
Image
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: AAR for HARD_Sarge

Post by Hard Sarge »

ORIGINAL: Denniss

Hmm, still some problems with aircraft:
A Ju 87 D-1 should not be available in 5/1941 as it was first delivered in 8/1941.

I need more info, I am showing the D-1 being out in 1940 ? are you sure that is not the D-3 or D-5

There should be a lot of older Ju 88 A-5 around, the A-4 was more or less brand new and numbers were more limited.
Is there no Bf 109 F-1 around ? Should be available in some numbers (~200 built), the newer F-2 was first delivered in 3/1941. The replacement rate for the F-2 should be pretty high as it was built in ~1300 from 3 to 8/1941. Inbetween the F-4 kicked in with first deliveries in summer 1941.

BTW - was is a Bf 109 E-7/B? This variant did not exist as every standard E-7 was able to carry a bomb, that's why this designation was dropped. The /B was only used on aircraft specifically built or rebuilt for use as fighter-bomber.
Image
User avatar
BigDuke66
Posts: 2035
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Terra

RE: AAR for HARD_Sarge

Post by BigDuke66 »

The D-1 was constructed in 1940, went into production in early 1941 and entered service at the end of 1941.

So it's right that it was out(first flight) in 1940 but it took a while to get to the units.


But info on the web is somtimes really contradictory.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avstuka.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju ... bers_built

One source even says the D entered service in Spring 1941 another source says Spring 1942.

Maybe someone can dig out a really good book that is focused on the Ju-87. Hopefully that would bring some light in.
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: AAR for HARD_Sarge

Post by Hard Sarge »

okay, from some of what I am seeing

the D-1, I see anywhere from late 40, to spring of 41, to spring of 42, so really, part is confused, part is what do we/I want

109F-4, I seeing this coming out in 42 when the new engine was ready ?

in fact, I myself, love the F-4, but don't see it being around enough to add it, if you have something showing the F4 was around in 8/41 let me know

109E-7/B, I also see statements it could carry a drop tank in fighter roles, or a 250 KILO bomb in FighterBomber role
for game purpose, for player purpose, I think nameing it 109E-7 and 109E-7/B fills the need for the player

plus, from a game side, I do not want a 109E-7 and a 109E-7 showing up as replacements when they are not the same plane from the game point of view


Image
User avatar
von Shagmeister
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Dromahane, Ireland

RE: AAR for HARD_Sarge

Post by von Shagmeister »

1st losses of Bf 109F-4 I can find with JG 26 occur on 19Jul41.
Per Speculationem Impellor ad Intelligendum

Denniss
Posts: 9303
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Germany, Hannover (region)

RE: AAR for HARD_Sarge

Post by Denniss »

Trust the build numbers and build dates found at Wikipedia, they are based on material from the german military archive in Freiburg.

The Bf 109F saw a rapid development, as soon as the parts originally developed for the 109F became available they had a new version. The 109F was originally planned with a new gun and a new engine. As neither was reliable and/or availbale in numbers they used an old engine and gun in the F-1. As soon as the newer gun (MG 151) was ready they got the F-2. With the new DB 601E engine they got the F-3 but very soon after the new MG 151/20 was ready so it became the F-4. All this happened roughly within a year and improved the performance dramatically.

And again, there was no E-7/B designation as the E-7 was capable to carry either a drop tank or a 250 or four 50 kg bombs, it was basically an E-4/B able to carry a drop tank. To complicate it further there were two versions of the E-7, the standard version with DB 601A or 601Aa engine and the higher alt version E-7/N with the DB 601N.

Maybe leave the bomb carrying Bf 109E as E-4/B with the E-7 having an option to exchange drop tank for a bomb and thus becoming an E-4/B. But this may add oher problems with replacement rates. It looks like we have to live with an incorrect designation.
WitE dev team - (aircraft data)
WitE 1.08+ dev team (data/scenario maintainer)
WitW dev team (aircraft data, partial data/scenario maintainer)
WitE2 dev team (aircraft data)
User avatar
harley
Posts: 1700
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 3:21 am

RE: AAR for HARD_Sarge

Post by harley »

Denniss - you are missing the point.

The way the game allocates roles to units is via the equipped aircraft. Having a unit with "Fighter" aircraft will mean they can Sweep, Escort or Iron Bomb. The AI will treat them as fighters. In order to represent the factual change of unit roles from Fighter to Fighter/Bomber we need dedicated fighter/bomber aircraft. This means taking a model, calling it a fighter/bomber and assigning it to a unit.

If we don't do this, then the unit can act as a fighter, and can be changed over to any other flavour of fighter you want. This defeats trying to represent the LW mandated Fighter/Bomber staffeln and gruppen.

The fact that it is called a Bf109E-7/B doesn't change the fact that it is a BF109E-7 with a bomb. It's just a point of differentiation.

Oh, and trust nothing on Wikipedia without independent verification...

gigiddy gigiddy gig-i-ddy
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”