RE: another run on BoB

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: another run on BoB

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich >> RE: another run on BoB

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: another run on BoB - 9/27/2006 9:13:22 PM

langley

Posts: 183
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Newbury, Berkshire, England.
Status: offline

As alreadly stated 601 Sqn flew the Airacobra in September 1941.
Also in September 1941 56 Sqn RAF started to equip with the Typhoon IA's.
As for the Tomahawk the Mk IIa/b when into service with 26 sqn RAF in Feb 1941 it also flew with 414 sqn RCAF But most appear to of gone to the middle east!
If you do incule Coastal Command then the following Squardons were flying Blenheim IVf at the end of 1940
in 15 group 236 sqn, and in 18 group 235 sqn, 248 sqn and 254 sqn.

I will see what else i can find out if it helps!

MJT

_____________________________

"My God, I hope you don't blame me for this. I had no idea where you were."
Air Vice-marshal Pulford upon the loss of "Force Z"

(in reply to otisabuser2)

Post #: 61

RE: another run on BoB - 9/28/2006 1:56:01 AM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

I thought the P-39 was only tested and not liked by the GB ?

Actually, the RAF used the Airacobra Mk I (with 601 squadron) operationally from Duxford, from August to December 1941, when 601 converted to Spitfires. I could only find info on one raid to France, on 9th October, where the squadron took the aircraft into battle.

Kewl, I didn't know that it was used, I have read how the GB tested it and did not really like it and turned it down (which, those could of been the tests)

we can work it in, give me a bit to think about it

_____________________________

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 62

RE: another run on BoB - 9/28/2006 1:58:32 AM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: langley

As alreadly stated 601 Sqn flew the Airacobra in September 1941.
Also in September 1941 56 Sqn RAF started to equip with the Typhoon IA's.
As for the Tomahawk the Mk IIa/b when into service with 26 sqn RAF in Feb 1941 it also flew with 414 sqn RCAF But most appear to of gone to the middle east!
If you do incule Coastal Command then the following Squardons were flying Blenheim IVf at the end of 1940
in 15 group 236 sqn, and in 18 group 235 sqn, 248 sqn and 254 sqn.

I will see what else i can find out if it helps!

MJT

find out what you can, can't promise I can get them in, but the info would still be welcome

_____________________________

(in reply to langley)

Post #: 63

RE: another run on BoB - 9/28/2006 5:16:45 AM

Denniss

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: otisabuser2

I have two sources stating that both I StG/1 and II StG/2 had Ju87R during BoB. Do not know if this was a complete outfitting with this type.

During BoB, the RAF were supplied with Buffalo, Martlett, Mohawk and one Tomahawk from the US.

Do you have some more info about the misions they conducted? My info is they were used for convoy/shipping attacks as they needed some more range than the standard Ju 87B models. The Luiftwaffe could have used them to attack targets further inland the UK but this was considered too dangerous and ineffective because of the heavy protection needed for them and their known vulnerability.

(in reply to otisabuser2)

Post #: 64

RE: another run on BoB - 9/28/2006 7:29:13 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

Re Spitfire armour -

I noet the following armour ratings from the previous Page:

Spitfire IA - 1
Spitfire IB - 2
Spitfire IIA - 1
Spitfire VB - 1

Is this correct? I know some cannon armed Spit IB's were operated by 19 Sqn, but was unaware they had any extra armour.

the IIA had another 75 lb of armour compared to the I tho'.

On a related note is everynoe familiar with http://www.spitfireperformance.com/?? It used to be called the Spitfire Performance Page (as per the URL) but is now titled "WWII Aircraft Performance" since it has so many US and German stats on it as well as Spitfire & other UK ones.

I haven't gotten tired of reading the reports yet!!

(in reply to Denniss)

Post #: 65

RE: another run on BoB - 9/28/2006 11:24:37 AM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

Hi Hard Sarge

I'm curious as to reasoning behind the inclusion and role of the following Italian planes:

BR.65 Bis
BR.88
SM.81 Pipistello
Cant Z.1007 Alcione

The two Breda planes were not a success and based on their historical use in Corsica and North Africa, I cannot imagine them being used at all in any hypothetical 1941 campaign.

The SM.81 was mainly used as a transport and by 1941, if used over UK (again extremely unlikely IRL), would at best be only a night bomber.

The Alcione was a better bomber than the FIAT and for a 1941 Campaign, should definitely be employed as a bomber rather than recon.

Alfred

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 66

RE: another run on BoB - 9/28/2006 2:53:29 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Re Spitfire armour -

I noet the following armour ratings from the previous Page:

Spitfire IA - 1
Spitfire IB - 2
Spitfire IIA - 1
Spitfire VB - 1

Is this correct? I know some cannon armed Spit IB's were operated by 19 Sqn, but was unaware they had any extra armour.

the IIA had another 75 lb of armour compared to the I tho'.

On a related note is everynoe familiar with http://www.spitfireperformance.com/?? It used to be called the Spitfire Performance Page (as per the URL) but is now titled "WWII Aircraft Performance" since it has so many US and German stats on it as well as Spitfire & other UK ones.

I haven't gotten tired of reading the reports yet!!

the IB is more a carry over from the last game (still stuck in the data base and shows on the screen when it shouldn't)

nice site, thanks

(on a side note, Armor does not really reflex on protection, it was used in the code more for how the plane should fight, which basicly, meant it wouldn't)

_____________________________

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 67

RE: another run on BoB - 9/28/2006 3:10:57 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Hi Hard Sarge

I'm curious as to reasoning behind the inclusion and role of the following Italian planes:

BR.65 Bis
BR.88
SM.81 Pipistello
Cant Z.1007 Alcione

The two Breda planes were not a success and based on their historical use in Corsica and North Africa, I cannot imagine them being used at all in any hypothetical 1941 campaign.

The SM.81 was mainly used as a transport and by 1941, if used over UK (again extremely unlikely IRL), would at best be only a night bomber.

The Alcione was a better bomber than the FIAT and for a 1941 Campaign, should definitely be employed as a bomber rather than recon.

Alfred

the first two
they were the main attack planes of the IT airforce, and until it was found out that they pretty muched sucked, they remained the main attack planes, they were also used in Russia during this time frame, they were what the IT had for ground support

I didn't want to have the IT having to use Stukas, so since they were used in this time frame, they should be used

yes the 81 was used as both a transport and a Bomber, and depending on it's needs, it could be used either way, in 40 and 41, they were still cocky and sure of them selfs, in 43, they would leave it on the ground

so saying, there are not many of them, but they are there

the 1007, was not built in any great numbers, and to use it as a Bomber in 41, we would be using numbers they didn't have and it was a decent bomber for it's time, so decided to keep it in the recon role it also had (500 some built, but only 55 were built by june of 40, so I don't see the numbers we need to be there)

so while it is a what if, I am trying to keep it to units that were used and planes that were in place

the 202 will be a strech, but it will come in late when they start building

(the 88 turned out to be so bad, that the IT decided to leave them sitting on there airfields and hope that when the Allies attacked, they would go after them, instead of better and more usable planes !)

I mean, I could bring in some IT units and then give them Ju 88s and Stukas and 109s, but what is the point of that ?

_____________________________

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 68

RE: another run on BoB - 9/28/2006 4:36:23 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

I never heard of the germans using the Ju 87R in BoB, it was mostly used in an anti-shipping role in the med.
The Ju 88 A-5 was produced earlier thant the A-4, The A-4 got increased wingspan and some 500 kg more bomb load.
Some things I don't like: Bf 109 E-4/B and 110 C-4/B with large loss of mvr, they are intended to drop their bomb(s) if attacked. With bomb(s) dropped they are just plain E-4/C-4. AFAIK they usd the same ETC bomb carrier the planes used to mount the drop tank.

Agree, those are not my stats for the planes, I will up them to just under normal numbers, to show they are still geared towards being FBs and not F

The recon stats in the '40 scenario looks like you upped the cruise speed to nearly max speed (as was previously done in BTR) but the endurance may need some mods to have them not exceed their normal range. (Similar to BTR especially with drop tanks and their normal endurance add-on)

_____________________________

(in reply to Denniss)

Post #: 69

RE: another run on BoB - 10/2/2006 1:32:10 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

I thought the P-39 was only tested and not liked by the GB ?

the RAF liked the Airacobra and thought it would make a damned fine fighter up to 20,000 feet and g/attack a/c.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Actually, the RAF used the Airacobra Mk I (with 601 squadron) operationally from Duxford, from August to December 1941, when 601 converted to Spitfires. I could only find info on one raid to France, on 9th October, where the squadron took the aircraft into battle.

601 made 4 Rhubarb sorties to the coast of France and shot up a trawler and some barges.

there were detail problems with the a/c that had to be sorted out - such as firing the guns blinded the pilot and screwed up the compass making it hard to get home, plus lesser evils - it was hte compass problem that caused them to withdraw it from service.

But basically at that time the Sov's and hte US in the Pacific were screaming for fighters - the RAF had Spitfires, so the Cobra's went elsewhere.

Joe Baugher has a writeup at http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p39_5.html that is an interesting read including hte details I've mentioned, plus more - such as comments on combat comparisons between the airacobra and Spitfires and 109's.

< Message edited by SMK-at-work -- 10/2/2006 1:35:40 AM >

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 70

RE: another run on BoB - 10/2/2006 2:20:24 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Well, there you are then... Interesting write-up on the Airacobra; thanks for the link, SMK...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 71

RE: another run on BoB - 10/2/2006 4:40:11 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

odd though

they compare it to a old out of date fighter, and say it is better, also the numbers they are stateing are pretty low as far as speed goes, and then say it was faster then the Spit V

also odd is the comment about the good stall warning, never mentioned that the pilot was dead if the plane did stall

(biggest hassle with a midengine plane, the CG is off, the nose will never go down by itself, once it stalls and goes into a spin, it is a flatspin, with no way of breaking out of it, normal anti spin moves is to center the controls, then get you nose down, once down, then work on countering the derection of the spin, with the 39, you could not get the nose to go down, and if you were not out of the plane as soon as it started, you were trapped by the force of the spin)

I may be able to get Harley to give us a pool of them as a replacement during the battle and if the player wants to upgrade to it, they can, I do not think I can force the AI to use them this way, unless we HARD code a unit to do it

_____________________________

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 72

RE: another run on BoB - 10/27/2006 6:01:15 PM

mikemike

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

for the 88, I got the A-4 modeled, but named the A-5, so no hassle there

I hope you don�t mean you�re using the A-4 in the 1940 BoB!
During the BoB, the variant used was the A-5, armed with just three 7,92mm MG (probably MG 15). The A-4 variant was a reaction to combat experience from the BoB. It had greater wingspan, a more robust structure, more bombload (up to 2.500 kg, IIRC, 4x500 kg under the wings and 10x50 kg in the fuselage bomb bay), and a heavier defensive armament: 1-2x7,92mm MG 81 or (later) 1x13mm MG 131 firing forwards, two MG 81 in separate mountings in the aft end of the greenhouse, and an MG 81Z (twin-barreled version of MG 81) firing aft from the underfuselage tub. The A-4 variant would be correct for a 1941 setting; it was then and for the rest of the war the principal bomber variant of the Ju 88. It could be used as a level bomber but also as a dive bomber, especially on anti-shipping missions (it didn�t dive as steeply as the Stuka, more like a very steep glide, but that probably increased accuracy against point targets significantly).

So you�d better use the A-5 with corrected characteristics for 1940 and the A-4 for 1941 and later, there is a significant difference between the variants.

_____________________________

DON�T PANIC - IT�S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 73

RE: another run on BoB - 10/27/2006 6:06:51 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Will double check

_____________________________

(in reply to mikemike)

Post #: 74

RE: another run on BoB - 10/28/2006 1:51:57 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

Hard I'm not so sure about hte CofG with the Airacobra - it had tricycle undercart afterall, so it must have been ahead of the mainwheels! Also hte basic configuration is of course the same as ftront-engined a/c, which makes me think hte CofG was comparable too. There's some comments about it from someone who never flew it (but flew Mustangs and saw/talked about P39's) at http://www.microsoft.com/games/combatfs2/articles_budanderson.asp.

More info is at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3901/is_200409/ai_n9457562/pg_16 - it seems the "death by tumbling" myth was just that - a myth - it could not be replicated by test pilots, although one chap syas he experienced it.

I suspect the P-39 was like the LaGG-3 - it got some bad press at the start and that clouded every other assessment of it ever made......except by the Russians and the RAF! :)

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 75

RE: another run on BoB - 11/2/2006 10:41:05 PM

daveballmh

Posts: 11
Joined: 1/3/2006
Status: offline

Looking at this thread it looks as it the Fiat G.50bis has 4 x 12.7 mg.

All the reference books and diagrams I have ever seen seem to show it as having on 2 x 12.7mm mgs, as per the CR42, MC200 and Re2000. I even have a feeling the MC202 may have had only this armament in the very early model, although the standard was 2x12.7 & 2 X 7.9mm

Regards

Dave

< Message edited by daveballmh -- 11/2/2006 10:44:19 PM >

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 76

RE: another run on BoB - 11/3/2006 12:42:12 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

Accordign to http://www.comandosupremo.com/G50.html there was a fighter-bomber version produced in 1942 the G50Bis/A that was a 2 seater with 2 additional 12.7's in the wings and arrestor hook for use on carriers. However http://skylancers.homestead.com/files/Feb-Mar2004SlowNews.pdf has a section on Italain carreir planes and thinks that the only modification was an arrestor hook.

(in reply to daveballmh)

Post #: 77

RE: another run on BoB - 11/4/2006 2:13:15 AM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

The P39 etc are not the only aircraft with problems in the spin, I have read the pilots notes for the P51D, and it is impossible to get out of a spin after 2 or 3 turns (the notes were precise, I just can't remember)

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 78

RE: another run on BoB - 11/4/2006 3:35:41 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

Yeah we tend to forget that fighter a/c were right at the edge of the perfomance envelope for the time - massive engines in tiny airframes.....even the "duds" were actually high performance a/c - perhaps hte Buffalo wasn't quite as good as the P40, which wasn't as good as the Zero - but all of them could do over 300mph and that's not a trivial achievement.

(in reply to HMSWarspite)

Post #: 79

RE: another run on BoB - 11/4/2006 9:40:09 AM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: daveballmh

Looking at this thread it looks as it the Fiat G.50bis has 4 x 12.7 mg.

All the reference books and diagrams I have ever seen seem to show it as having on 2 x 12.7mm mgs, as per the CR42, MC200 and Re2000. I even have a feeling the MC202 may have had only this armament in the very early model, although the standard was 2x12.7 & 2 X 7.9mm

Regards

Dave

one of my books on BoB was listing it with 4 12.7s but most of the other info I have seen show 2, so the one book may of had a mistake in it

_____________________________

(in reply to daveballmh)

Post #: 80

RE: another run on BoB - 11/5/2006 1:14:21 PM

fochinell

Posts: 287
Joined: 11/19/2005
Status: offline

about the P-39

I'm researching this as a part of my PhD research on the UK/US aircraft supply. The Airacobra 1's were all P-400's, similar to the P-39D except with a 20mm Hispano cannon firing through the spinner instead of the 37mm cannon, and .303 MG's replacing the wing-mounted .30in MGs. The RAF had serious problems with it when 601 Sqn used it, mostly down to spares availability (which was a common problem with the introduction of all US types to RAF service, including the Mustang I and Tomahawk I which was a chronic issue) and compass deviation. They were used for some low-level "Rhubarbs" across the Chanel, but while the CinC of Fighter Command was prepared to see the problems worked out, the Air Ministry specifically selected the rest of the Airacobra I contract and subsequent lend-lease P-39 supplies to meet the requirement for the 200 fighters per month the British had to supply the Russians from September 1941 to June 1942. The CinC of FC was offered Spitfires in exchange for the P-39's actually in service with 601 Sqn in February 1942 by the Air Staff, and jumped at the chance. Hence the end of the Airacobra in RAF service. While the RAF recognised that it was a good performer low down, the spares and equipment problems (shortages of engines and propellers were to remain a problem for P-39 production for some time) plus the poor performance at altitude made it expendible, and it wasn't regarded as a comparable replacement for the Hurricane or Spitfire. The RAF had no significant reports of spinning problems with the Airacobra, and when the USAAF investigated it in late '42/early '43, they traced the problem of "tumbling" to a few incidents reported by the 31st FG while they were using the type in spring '42 during training.

The P-36 and P-40 had been delivered in the second half of 1940 (deliveries starting in August and October, respectively) but neither was regarded as a successful interceptor, and equipment problems delayed the combat evaluation of the P-40 until January-March 1941. Almost all the better-equipped Tomahawk II's were shipped directly to the Middle East from spring 1941 onwards, while stocks of those delivered to the UK were used for Army Co-Operation Command and then shipped to Russia at the end of the year to meet the Soviet supplly Protocol requirements. Shortage of replacements, equipment and spares severely limited the operational capability of the P-40 in the UK.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 81

RE: another run on BoB - 11/6/2006 2:33:54 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

okay looks like one of my books got the Bis and the Bis/A confused when stateing the stats for the planes flying in the BoB

will correct

_____________________________

(in reply to fochinell)

Post #: 82