Fighter Sweep - Program Exploit or Great Way to Wipe out the LW?

[PizzaDeOveja]

Haha all this talk about how unfair it is for fighter sweeps to be so damaging...funny[:D]

IMHO the thing is that being anglosaxons, having air superiority in all the wars made you not take into account how sh*%ty it is to have to operate without it! But it surely is. Of course airports got shredded by bombing and strafing runs and the Germans pilots had as much chance as the thousand of civilians the Americans and especially the brits in their terror circus.

Well... playing this game on the German side really puts you in place and tells the full story and specially how miraculously it was that the Germans managed to withstand so much time (granted it helped to be a totalitarian socialist state that machine gunned defeatist but anyways...).

It was the same for Spain in the old days, with the Brits financing every fanatic that wanted to wage war against us it was amazing we managed to last for so long against such odds. But we did, and for a lot more time than the Germans managed and against many more enemies. Even the pope was against us! and we was defending Catholicism! Talk about fighting against all odds!

The French and brits didn't last a month without air superiority in 1940, the Germans lasted years without it and fighting a 3 front war. And as for the glorious Spaniards, oh boy how did they manage to keep the godless communists at bay for months with no air support whatsoever in total inferiority in material but with total superiority in everything else.

AIR Superiority RULES and I doubt any brit/american army will ever get into a battle without it, in fact last time I checked it is military doctrine since very long ago, and boy there is a reason for that!

So no more bitchin' about it in the forum ok???[:-][:D]

[kaybayray]

Hey Pizza <S> [8D]

I think you are missing the point of the thread started by Nick. IMHO the points are that the game mechanics as they work in BTR produce very unrealsitic and Ahistoric results with respect to the Allied Fighter "Patrols", their engagement with Luftwaffe assets and the reaction of the Luftwaffe assets to the Allied patrols.

I suggest you read from the very beginning with Nick's original posts. I agree with his views and for those reasons I dont use the Patrol feature in many ways because it is unrealistic. As enjoyable is it may be for some to sit and watch their patrol nail Luftwaffe AC after AC as they attempt to land at an Airfield near your patrol without making any effort to engage or find another field to land at, I belive it is so far removed from a historical or even realistic event in the overall theme of this game that I do not use it in that way. IMHO that is what we refer to as "Gaming the Game" or in wider circles "MetaGaming". I dont see it as at all enjoyable so for me it is not an option. I believe Nick also thinks this way as do many others. However each of us can choose to run their campaign as they see fit. So I am not telling you what you can or can not do. Just trying to enlighten you as to what this thread was actually started about long ago.

Later,

KayBay [8D]

[npsergio]

A noob here...
I have sent FS with very good results in enmy killed planes on the ground, but to a very high cost in morale and damaged and killed allied planes because of AA and reaction attacks... My question is: the problem (ahistoric killing of landing palnesa) here is when after the AF straffing the FS planes patrol over the AF, isn't it? Do you use house rules not allowing patrols over the enemy AF?

Thanks

[7th Somersets]

My question is: the problem (ahistoric killing of landing palnesa) here is when after the AF straffing the FS planes patrol over the AF, isn't it? Do you use house rules not allowing patrols over the enemy AF?

That is right - the problem arises where the allied player launches a fighter sweep that has a target point near the enemy airfield and then sets a patrol over it... the result is that you get no/very few losses and seem to hit a large numberof landing enemy aircraft.

The real problem here imo is the ai not reacting to this by diverting - since such patrols did occur historically and when they caught enemy ac in landing patterns they did cause havoc - however - the AI does not seem to respond to this tactic - sending the rest of the returning squadron to its doom one after another.

The other problem is that with message levels set to 3 - you can see where enemy aircraft come from very easily (and also by looking at the map). This means that you can readily identify the airfields that are regularly used and set patrols over them very easily.

I personally see nothing wrong with an allied player trying to set up patrols that catch landing aircraft - since that is what happened - and because it can be a significant drain on fighter resources. I agree though that without the 'fixes' set out above that the results become a-historical.

[PizzaDeOveja]

Oh boy-oh boy-oh boy...[:D]x100000000

yesterday I planed I raid on the coastal radars that the Germans cunningly have constructed, and naturally, a whole bunch of bf-109 AS went on to intercept my glorious raid.

Well first it must be said that from the wiki you just cant get much about submodels of a particular aircraft...some entries are more helpful than the others...but I think that AS designation in a model was the German way of saying that that particular sub model would produce a ton o' widows in brit/america[:D]...anyways...[:'(]

They made a single pass on my bombers and returned to base. On this point I must say that I had already identified their home base so I conducted an earlier FS that did some damage before they took off (oddly enough your fighters don't get to shoot enemies taking off only landing, but it must be a balance thing or somethin) but...as my thunderbolt FS had a single mustang unit on it, it was still hovering over their base when they came to land...and...

OH BOY was that awesome...suffice to say...I wont be seeing those AS guys any time soon...

[&o]Hooooooo! ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho...[:D]

I'm already examining the map to plan false raids in order to catch the Luftwaffe landing![:D]

::EDit::
according to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109_variants#Late-production_G-6.2C_G-14.2C_G-14.2FAS
AS means that the plane has been fitted with an engine designed specifically to operate at high altitude ...A good thing to target those as soon as U identify them, if you like me, always send the raids at 25000+ feet.

[Turner]

Naive realism at its peak.

Seriously, the landing units must be able to divert when they are notified of enemy fighters over their airfield. No pilot in his right mind would try to land on a airfield patrolled by enemy fighters. The penalty could mean a delay of 1 day before the unit is assembled and ready for action again. However that is a more realistic outcome (statistically speaking) than losing all planes and many pilots in one or several units trying to land at that particular airfield.

[lastdingo]

::EDit::
according to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109_variants#Late-production_G-6.2C_G-14.2C_G-14.2FAS
AS means that the plane has been fitted with an engine designed specifically to operate at high altitude ...A good thing to target those as soon as U identify them, if you like me, always send the raids at 25000+ feet.
[/quote]

More precisely, AS means that the DB605 engine got the charger of the DB603 engine (a higher cylinder volume engine). This increased the full pressure ceiling considerably. The advantage exists solely above the normal DB605's full pressure ceiling which was historically a bit under 6 km (20k ft).
As a result these Bf109G models excelled at altitudes exactly above the good altitude range of almost all Fw 190A/F/G models (Fw 190 was good up to 20k ft).

The Bf109 is still a deathtrap even in the Bf109G-5/AS version, though. Too fragile, not enough firepower to yield good kill ratios against tough targets. It's furthermore still not capable enough to interdict photo reconnaissance aircraft reliably (Ta 152C can do this very well).

The real killers are early on the best Fw190A-5/-6 units. Some of them rack up very high kill counts, especially if they've been located just outside of escort fighter range till early 1944.
This game produces a lot of experts (high aces) if pilots reach 100+ sorties with enemy contact. The secret ingredient for mass destruction by interceptors is thus to keep their pilots alive. The Bf 109G isn't good at this.

[PizzaDeOveja]

[font="Trebuchet MS"]
Excelent info lastdingo.
Personally I have an Xpecial notebook at hand in which I take note of the landing airports of any fw190 I see, I dont see it as a cheat as Im sure the info about the kinds of planes and where they were based was infinitely superior for the allies than the one we have in game so...[8D]

Oddly enough jets seem to be next to useless in the game, at least it has been in my campaign so far. There is an m163 unit, you know those rocket aircraft that killed more german pilots than anglos, that keeps taking off but so far its range hasn't allowed it to reach any single time any of my glorious planes. And then there's also an m262 unit whose glorious contribution to the national socialist cause so far has been 1 damaged b17 in exchange of one of their own upon landing. We wont be seeing many more of them as meser factory got a 99% hit last week...Hoooo ho ho ho ho ho[:D]

But a wolfpack of fw190 yesterday got around 5 bombers damaged and 3 or 4 destroyed in a single pass...ouch![X(] (and that with close and high friendlies!)

In my side, so far, the best are the mustang IV, oh how I love those guys...and the spitfires XIV (If I got that model correctly..its a model that has a range that is not ridiculous like all the other british fighters..) I don't have enough production of them so I have only like 6 flying but they always manage to come home with victories. Awesome planes awesome.[&o]

[/font]

[lastdingo]

Actually, Germany didn't have enough AAA to protect all airfields. It was much-preferred to use camouflage and concealment instead.

Some fighter airfields (not on Northern Germany's plains) were small fields that were 99% of the time full of cows or sheep. The aircraft were hidden in the woods nearby. The Allies didn't always know about these airfields.

Think of this when you read the next time that Me 262 couldn't be used on grass airfields (because the turbo engines burnt the grass) and were thus restricted to the few paved airfields (mostly civilian ones without any areas for hiding aircraft).


Btw, the Ta 152C is a beast. It slaughters the Allies (and can be had in April '44 while still putting up a good fight till that month). Nothing can stop it, for the few comparable Allied fighters are invariably overpowered by the superior experience of the German pilots who can survive on average about 200 missions in their Ta152Cs.
Performance and combat strength suffices to slaughter PR aircraft and B-17s alike.

[Turner]

ORIGINAL: lastdingo

Btw, the Ta 152C is a beast. It slaughters the Allies (and can be had in April '44 while still putting up a good fight till that month). Nothing can stop it, for the few comparable Allied fighters are invariably overpowered by the superior experience of the German pilots who can survive on average about 200 missions in their Ta152Cs.
Performance and combat strength suffices to slaughter PR aircraft and B-17s alike.

This is historically accurate. The Ta152A/B versions were to enter production in january '44. The type was production ready in late '43 but was turned down in favor of the Me209 project which was still in development. The Ta152A/B versions would have had the same armament as the C, with provisions for 2 more cannons (Mk108 or MG151/20) in the outboard wing mounts. Granted with the early Jumo 213A it would not have had the same performance as the later C powered by the DB603, but it would have made a very potent bomber killer nevertheless and engine development would have seen performance get better by the month.

Historically, the Me209 project ran into problems and never materialized. It was perhaps the biggest blunder of the RLM concerning daytime fighter defense, to not go ahead with full production of the Ta152A/B versions.

[lastdingo]

Jumo 222 A/B production was planned for 1942. The Jumo 222 A/B was as large as the BMW 801 and equipped with a ring cooler it could have been in service in 1942, with a quite lightweight 2,500 hp engine. That fighter would have reigned supreme below 20-25k ft even more than the BMW-equipped 190 ever did.


One of the great in-game strengths of the Ta 152C is its range and endurance, though. It allows much more intercepts and regular flights on defensive CAP against PR aircraft.
That's like having twice that number of Fw 190A-6s. On top of that it has a "good" high altitude rating, and has thus simply no weak spot.

[lastdingo]

double post

[Turner]

Never read of the Jumo 222 before so, thanks! Engine production was of such central importance to Germany. It is a recurring feature in Luftwaffe history that key production plants were bombed. Like how the Ta154 production was effectively eliminated when the glue factory was bombed out.

[PizzaDeOveja]

[font="tahoma"]Woh! I suppose you all guys already know but I didn't[&:] so just in case....

Yesterday I was performing a glorious a double airfield strike to catch those hellish 190 landing[:D] and it turns out that when you see a lot of AA black clouds around your planes it aint that the huns are missing yet again...if you turn messages to level 3...you will be informed that your planes are taking a lot of damage...and I mean a lot...I think once I got 15 planes damaged in a single puff-puff! So anytime you see some puffs here and there expect a lot of planes to immediately return to base (that must be what happened to my glorious LANC III unit that turned home in the middle of the strike! It a good thing I'm the overcomandant and don't own anyone an apology after my 2 hour rant[:@] about their cowardice...well except to my poor neighbor that is[:D]) [/font]

[Turner]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ktJlY6FeNw

Go to 720p and fullscreen and you'll see what a Ta152H is capable of.

The first engagement is a good example of mismanagement of speed in a dive. Once you hit compression it can be difficult to recover and in this case it resulted in a P47 slipping away. It's very true what they say, altitude is life and speed is your saviour.

[lycortas]

The Ta 154 had nothing to do with a glue factory. Tank found an adhesive he liked in '42 and built the first two 154's with this adhesive. The RLM did not like this adhesive company for political reasons (and possibly money changing hands with the new company) so the RLM vetoed Tank's choice and forced him to use another companies adhesive.
Which then promptly ate through the wood it was bonded to causing the 154's to crash in flight.

The 154 should be an optional rule in the game; "you can use them/you can not use them" as there was no chance the way things historically went that they would ever be used.

But we cannot do this as the 154 takes 4 engines, signifying that there was an engine problem with this aircraft. There was no engine problem, it should probably require 2 or 3 parts per 154 to build them. But 2 engines. With a need for 4 engines the German player can never build them.

Michael

[Turner]

It had nothing to do with a glue factory? What's the difference between glue and adhesive then? The factory was bombed out in '44 ending Ta154 production, that was the issue. Yes NSDAP politics and RLM bureaucracy often hampered development and efficiency, sometimes even counterproductive.

[lycortas]

The factory manufacturing the glue that worked was not bombed.
The factory that was bombed was making a sub par glue, and the TA 154 kept disintegrating in the air because of this glue.

The plane would have never gone operational with that glue.

Mike

[Turner]

Ok I won't argue the point with you it's not my personal opinion just what my source say. So I have no personal conviction or prestige vested in it.

Do you know which the specific companies involved were?

[lycortas]

Okay, there were 3 glues.
The first i do not know the name of; it was listed in the Focke-Wulf interrogations documents. Tank said he wanted that one.

The second was Goldamund in Wuppertal, this glue did not eat wood but it was of limited strength. This glue is blamed for the crashes of V4,5,8,9 and 12 if i remember correctly.

Goldamund was destroyed in may or June of '44, so Tank switched to Dynamit AG from Leverkusen. Many sources seem to have this incorrect. Dynamit was NOT half as strong as Goldamund, Goldamund was half as strong as Tank's first choice. Dynamit's problem was that it ate the wood it was bonded to.

The first two A0's that flew with Dynamit glue disintegrated in the air, Tank checked the fuselages of the other A0's and found the glue eating the wood. So he cancelled the program.

I wish i could remember the first glue that was mentioned. I copied as much as i could at the Library of Congress but i certainly never had the time to copy all of the data. I am looking through my pile of notes and if i find the company's name and location i will post it.

Mike