S3 Series

Home Page FAQ Team Search
  Register
Login 
View unanswered posts View active topics  

Delete all board cookies

All times are UTC




New Topic Post Reply  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page
 Previous << 
1, 2, 3
 >> Next 
  Print view
Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: The 262 Issue, etc.
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:41 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2013 3:00 pm
Posts: 672
Location: Florida
Salute!

If we're gonna close the 262 bases, then forget L72( especially for first tgt) and concentrate on the two jet bases to ensure destruction, huh?

Biggest thing is to not lose a lotta buffs with this point setup. 3 buffs equals a base.

Gums...


"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: The 262 Issue, etc.
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:54 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:04 am
Posts: 417
Gums wrote:
Salute!

If we're gonna close the 262 bases, then forget L72( especially for first tgt) and concentrate on the two jet bases to ensure destruction, huh?

Biggest thing is to not lose a lotta buffs with this point setup. 3 buffs equals a base.

Gums...


Darryl wrote:
NOTE: The targets might need to be reversed to make the 262 fields primary with the L72 being a target of opportunity upon egress.


Let's not be wreckless, but let's also not be too conservative. As we saw in frame one, we had enough bombers/bombs to handle three airfields. The circumstances (great fighter cover) afforded us the opportunity to hit L71. I would anticipate that we'll have the same numbers of bomber pilots, if not more, for frame two. We'll just be prepared for whatever happens. Frame one went nearly flawlessly and that isn't the norm for us. :)

Thanks <S>

P.S. Who is leading frame two, etc.?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: The 262 Issue, etc.
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:18 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 2:57 am
Posts: 54
Location: Ann Arbor Michigan
352nd, 23rd and the 4th last frame totaled 53 fighters. I'm sure we can cover your bomb group just fine. The 328th FS with its 6 pilots kept Luftflotte 6
(16+ 109's/190's) busy long enough for you Bomb guys to complete your runs. If 53 dedicated fighters from 3 FG can't protect ya....we might as well forfeit the rest of the frame!
<S>


352nd Fighter Group (V) - "The Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney"
328th Fighter Squadron (V) -PE- Red and Green


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: The 262 Issue, etc.
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 11:24 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2013 7:15 am
Posts: 917
"Sometimes" all the bombs don't fall where planned. While no type of field gun is on the OT list, IF you ever need fighters to help finish-off a field that had an errant bomb, it surely would help the fighter guys if our buffers could discover and kill these:

Image

If it meant "only" closing two fields rather than three, from a purely fighter guy perspective, it would be "worth" it. Additionally, the less time our buffs spend in Injun Country, the more effective your fighter cover can be in protecting you.


Happy trails...
Wolf
XO 352nd Fighter Group (virtual)

Image


Last edited by dewolf on Wed Jan 08, 2014 12:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: The 262 Issue, etc.
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 11:32 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2013 3:00 pm
Posts: 672
Location: Florida
Salute!

Well, Wolfman and Gums are "in the zone" on this. I may be getting old, but I would prefer two in the hand versus a potential three in the bush. It's not out of the question to fail to close even two bases with the way the scoring and such is for this series.

Secondly. many of the acks go down due to collateral damage if we drop the really big eggs. See WLDBIL's S6 numbers for frame one, ditto Goflyj.

Ditto on less time in injun country if we wish good escort.

Gums sends...


"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: The 262 Issue, etc.
PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:04 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:28 am
Posts: 144
Darryl wrote:
Second, SE-PUA's vision was that we remove all the 262 bases within the first two frames. That idea has pros and cons.

PRO: The enemy no longer has the jet available to hit our ground targets with lightning speed.
CON: The enemy no longer has the jet available and now it puts them in a/c that can come after our bombers with 2 more steps of 190s/109s, or they will just use the 190s to continue striking our ground targets. They may simply move into their bombers.

Questions:
1. How effective were the 262s in frame one?
2. Would it be better to allow them to use them 4 out of 5 frames to keep up to 13 pilots off our bomber groups, since they can only be utilized for ground strikes?

These "13" pilots you speak of... ehhhhh, aren't they mostly a dedicated group of bomber pilots?
I doubt they'll be pulled off of ground strikes. They simply don't think that way. As I recall there have been a few times that was suggested in the past and they tend to refuse.
It would coincide with real life as a lot of bomber pilots were retrained to fly fighters late in the war but they're only willing to do X and never Y.
If they manage to surprise us and go all out in fighters I doubt most of them have ever had a fighter much higher than 5K and have no idea how difficult it is to line up on a buff at 30k.
KILL THE 262 FIELDS!
I'd rather eliminate the ME262s and deal with the potential of more prop fighters for the rest of the frame.
I doubt that the enemy frame CO will order the Knights to all be in 190s.
The ME262s are a non factor, especially since the average pilot hardly knows how to use them in a bomb run.
But they are an annoyance and it means less fun for Allied fighter pilots and I think overall less fun for the Axis.
Their options:
FW-190D9- A very good plane, but again you have to know how to fly it to be effective. Dangerous to bombers and hard to take down.
109s of different variants. Good at keeping P-51s busy, countered in altitude and speed by P-47s and not a big threat against buffs.
A very tight formation of B-17s would shred any 109 that approaches.
190A8-This is their best buff killer. But it's serious high altitude disadvantage makes it tough to get in more than pass. It's not much fun to take an A8 above 24k.
It also has the best gun packages for killing a buff now that it has a pair of 30mms.
190F8.... oh if they figure out how to work these planes... expect a lot of blown bridges.
Low altitude agility and speed to outrun anything on the deck, and after the JU-88 it has the best bang for the buck in bomb load out.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: The 262 Issue, etc.
PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:17 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2013 3:00 pm
Posts: 672
Location: Florida
Salute!

The Cat is right. Knights will likely go with 88's and work on bridges and such if we take away the 262's. And BTW, they are decent in 190's with eggs, just like the 262. A few also fly lites for escort when they have the numbers.

The 88's is the Knight ride of choice, and they know how to use them.

Biggest thing is to slow down strikes on our own fields and bridges. 88 is fast on the deck, but lots slower than the jet.

Gums opines...

Gusm sends...


"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: The 262 Issue, etc.
PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:58 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:04 am
Posts: 417
dewolf wrote:
"Sometimes" all the bombs don't fall where planned. While no type of field gun is on the OT list, IF you ever need fighters to help finish-off a field that had an errant bomb, it surely would help the fighter guys if our buffers could discover and kill these:

If it meant "only" closing two fields rather than three, from a purely fighter guy perspective, it would be "worth" it. Additionally, the less time our buffs spend in Injun Country, the more effective your fighter cover can be in protecting you.


You are correct. "Sometimes" they don't fall where we need them, as was evidenced at the third large field that we struck, L71. We left a single radarStn in the middle of the field, even though two 1600lbs were dropped very near it, which weakened it for the guns of the fighter that actually took it down.

What you saw with our bombing run was exactly what needed to happen, in spite of starting with 18 bombers and losing four bombers to disco-no damage and one to enemy fire (disco-with damage). The bomber crews lined up and were able to take care of business because of the excellent fighter cover. While targets were assigned in advance of the drop zone, changes were being made throughout the entire mission due to disconnections and loss of bombers to enemy fire. We try to add a little extra tonnage to certain targets to make sure we take into account target hardness and inaccurate drops. These bomber pilots from the Nomads and Doolittle's Raiders just make it look easy just like you fighters, while doing what you do.

The primary target (L88) was destroyed, the secondary target (L75) was destroyed, and we were left with just enough bombers/bombs to, perhaps, take down a third target of opportunity (L71). We are well-aware that it was a perfectly executed mission and that those don't come along every frame. We take these fields on one at a time.

FYI, we always make contingency plans if required targets are missed. In the case of frame one, we were going to drop on L88, then on L75, and return to L88 if there were any targets not destroyed and we had ordinance to complete the task. If any targets at L75 were missed, we would have returned to make a second pass on them. Of course, all of this would have depended on the situation with the cons and our own fighters. If the Frame CO evaluated the situation and deemed it too risky, we would have continued our egress back to base.

We will not be targeting everyone of these guns at the fields with our 1600lbs bombs. Our goal will be to close the fields with bombs. We started with 18 bombers (144 bombs) and losing four bombers to disco-no damage and one to enemy fire (disco-with damage) after his drop on L88 (minus about 36 bombs). There were 17 guns just on L88. It would require approximately 45 bombs (with 100% accuracy) to wipe out all hards and all guns at that field alone. In reality, we dropped about 40 bombs just to close all the hards at L88, and about 44 bombs to close L75. And, believe it or not, we only had 24 bombs in the bomb bays to do what we did on L71. That couldn't have been planned any tighter.

Finally, speaking for the bombers, we'll always plan to close between 1-3 fields each frame depending on conditions during each of those frames and the number of bombers we put into the air. I hope that helps the next Frame CO's in their planning.

Sincerely,
Darryl <S>
CO of Doolittle's Raiders


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: The 262 Issue, etc.
PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:01 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:04 am
Posts: 417
Gums wrote:
Salute!

The Cat is right. Knights will likely go with 88's and work on bridges and such if we take away the 262's. And BTW, they are decent in 190's with eggs, just like the 262. A few also fly lites for escort when they have the numbers.

The 88's is the Knight ride of choice, and they know how to use them.

Biggest thing is to slow down strikes on our own fields and bridges. 88 is fast on the deck, but lots slower than the jet.


I believe you and MADCAT are exactly right. Once the 262 bases are gone, we may have to devote more to the defenses of those targets? Where are these bridges, anyway?

<S>


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: The 262 Issue, etc.
PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:42 pm 

Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 8:35 pm
Posts: 62
Location: Brazil
Darryl wrote:
Where are these bridges, anyway?


Between 34 and 43, in the frontline ;-)


Sepua | 4th Fighter Group
MacBook Pro • Intel 2.66GHz i7 • 8GB DDR3 RAM • NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M 512MB • OS 10.8


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Search for:
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
New Topic Post Reply  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page
 Previous << 
1, 2, 3
 >> Next 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 88 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Jump to:  

Powered by The S-3.