Ta effectiveness. A game breaker? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich



Message

kaleun -> Ta effectiveness. A game breaker? (7/27/2013 2:49:02 PM)

I am in February 44 and my opponent received the Ta in January. The long nosed fighter has proven almost invincible even by massed P47-D (The long ranged one) and P51-Bs not to mention the P38-G.
He has offered to end the game as he believes the fighter is so effective that it renders the game completely unbalanced.[X(]
I am not so sure.
Any ideas please?



JeffroK -> RE: Ta effectiveness. A game breaker? (7/27/2013 11:19:27 PM)

You could mod the data......

Whoops, we dont have an editor.



I approach them like the Me262, be vigilant about where they are based and try to hit them on the ground.
Win some, loose some.



kaleun -> RE: Ta effectiveness. A game breaker? (7/27/2013 11:21:36 PM)

Yes, that's what I'm trying. Also to hit them as they land and try to kill some of his named pilots.



JeffroK -> RE: Ta effectiveness. A game breaker? (8/4/2013 12:02:27 PM)

How does attacking the aircraft factories affect development??

Might be a good reason for the Allies to give these priority?



kaleun -> RE: Ta effectiveness. A game breaker? (8/6/2013 9:19:31 PM)

Too many targets and most too deep inside the Reich to do any significant damage before jan/Feb 44.
I am hanging in there hoping he'll run out of planes. His aluminum factories are below critical so he isn't building new ones.



Misconduct -> RE: Ta effectiveness. A game breaker? (8/6/2013 9:47:07 PM)

I really wish I could even get that far, I still have trouble trying to shut the germans in Italy :(

I tried fighter sweeps if I know there are planes, even bombing the AF's but problem is the Flak is so heavily I end up losing more then I can shoot down or strafe. Make matters worse, once you push the German armor back enough, you gain the airfields, I don't get a chance to use them before the campaign is over. Which pretty much makes me use P47s and P38s only since the spitfires don't have the range.



JeffroK -> RE: Ta effectiveness. A game breaker? (8/8/2013 3:31:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kaleun

Too many targets and most too deep inside the Reich to do any significant damage before jan/Feb 44.
I am hanging in there hoping he'll run out of planes. His aluminum factories are below critical so he isn't building new ones.


I dont play the Luftwaffe so this is maybe an ignorant question.

Does research take up factories which would potentially be producing aircraft??

If so, place every effort put into hitting the Luftwaffe so that his numbers become critical so that he cannot affort to invest too much in research.

The Luftwaffe player has to think, do I win the war in 45 or am I going to get beaten up in 44.



DavidFaust -> RE: Ta effectiveness. A game breaker? (8/8/2013 3:35:42 AM)

quote:

Does research take up factories which would potentially be producing aircraft??


Yes



JeffroK -> RE: Ta effectiveness. A game breaker? (8/9/2013 11:29:09 PM)

So while the Ta is a very effective aircraft, to advance them too quickly could cause the Luftwaffe to be short of aircraft in the short term.

The allied counter is then to hit targets which further limit fighter production so that tough decisions have to be made.

Then when/if they arrive a lot of effort must go into attacking them at the bases, either hitting them at takeoff or landing or forcing them deeper into the Reich.

What aircraft work best against them, use these as a special group and just wear them down.

Same would go for the 262, everything has weaknesses which at least limits their effect.



DavidFaust -> RE: Ta effectiveness. A game breaker? (8/11/2013 3:58:44 AM)

The targets that would limit aircraft production are deep in Germany.

Day raids against these targets will be risky but it could pay off.

Night raids would be the weapon of choice but bomber command does not have the number to complete this task.




Turner -> RE: Ta effectiveness. A game breaker? (8/19/2013 11:46:05 PM)

The Ta152 is my main interest within WW2 aviation history. I do not believe it is overmodeled / unbalanced in the game. Granted, to have the DB603LA powered C model as early as Feb '44 is to deviate a significant amount from historical engine development. However, in late '43 the RLM had the Ta152A/B versions on the table, prototyped and ready to enter production as early as Jan '44. The A/B was powered by the Jumo 213A which later proved itself in the FW190D series (all Daimler-Benz production went to Messerschmitt) but at the time did not impress the RLM. They failed to see the much greater development potential of the 190 as a inline-powered interceptor in the shape of the Ta152A/B. The A was intended by FW to replace the Bf110 fleet of heavy interceptor / Zerstörer (planned to retire by mid-'44 and they did, with no replacement) and the B was to be equipped for NJ. RLM gave it thumbs down, they did not deem it worthy of the industrial retooling effort required for they thought the 190A was fully adequate in performance. Thus the RLM failed to see the huge development potential of the Ta152 concept which further underlined their inability to understand the operational and tactical difficulties the Jagdwaffe pilots were facing.

Undisputably, just this one decision alone was a huge favor to the allies. For if the Ta152A had entered production in early '44 there would have been no need for the 190D series which was a stop-gap (read panic) solution before the 152 (H and C) could enter production. Before the war ended both H and C types did enter produciton but few saw action (no confirmed accounts concerning the C) and it should be well known in this crowd that it was much too late to have any effect on the outcome of the war.

Focke-Wulf never had access to the Daimler-Benz production of fighter engines, it was neatly squared away for Messerschmitt. Had the 190 been powered by a inline DB from start it would have outclassed the 109 by such a large margin it could not have been denied that it was the better of the two. As it was and even with the BMW801 the 190 shocked the RAF to such a degree when it was first encountered in '41 that it earned the nickname "Butcher Bird".

The Ta152C is, in that perspective, unique in that it represented what Kurt Tank had always wanted to build, but never could. A Daimler-Benz inline powered FW190. The design was nevertheless way ahead of its time when it first flew in 1939. Messerschmitt was a man with political connections though.

And you can file that as yet another one of those 'what if' turning points of the war.

To build it in Jan '44 is not that much of a stretch. The one PBEM game I've played I won by making Ta152C research a priority. The Allied player could not find a effective way to negate their presence. I went through much trouble trying to keep experienced Jagdwaffe pilots alive while also protecting the vital industries throughout '43 though. It would be very interesting to hear if someone finds a way to counter the operational effectiveness of the Ta152. Personally I believe it would be through denying the Luftwaffe player the luxury to do the research by bombing the biggest engine factories. That would solve many problems for the Allied player if done successfully.

Currently I'm torn between starting a new PBEM game, or wait for the patch... [&o]



kaleun -> RE: Ta effectiveness. A game breaker? (8/20/2013 6:24:20 PM)

I'll keep you posted on how this game develops.



Turner -> RE: Ta effectiveness. A game breaker? (8/29/2013 6:28:45 PM)

Re-reading my documentation I have to correct myself, it seems the Ta152A was still in development in March '44, so the prospect of early Ta152s is looking less realistic. I'll have to read through some more material to get a better picture and specifically when the RLM made the first Ta152 production decision. Or maybe someone else have the information at hand?



Turner -> RE: Ta effectiveness. A game breaker? (8/29/2013 7:45:21 PM)

Hypothetically speaking, if the Ta152A would be included in the game it looks like a May-44 introduction date and this is what the specs would look like from the data I have. With reservation for change but this is from some factory drawings and data sheets on the A.

Junker Jumo 213E
Vmax 416
cruise 330
ceiling 36600
climb 2750
mvr 35
durab 36
armor 1
endure 145
load 900
gun val 31
type fighter
armament 4xMG151/20 3xMk108
alt med
range 351
range (real) 385



kaleun -> RE: Ta effectiveness. A game breaker? (8/29/2013 9:40:03 PM)

Well, the 152Cs are ravaging my daytime air forces. On the plus side, I've managed to keep his aluminum well below critical so he cannot replace losses.
This is not helping my pilots morale, both bombers and fighters.

Still soldiering on.



Turner -> RE: Ta effectiveness. A game breaker? (8/29/2013 9:48:56 PM)

Wow, good work on the aluminum keep it up. Is it possible to bomb such facilities effectively at night?

By the way which turn are you on? I looked at my previous game stats and found that in that game the first Ta152Cs arrived at turn #141. That's january 5th '44.



kaleun -> RE: Ta effectiveness. A game breaker? (8/29/2013 10:54:29 PM)

I am currently on 3/19/44.
The TA 152Cs arrived on Feb 1st 44.
It appears that my opponent converted all, or most of his parts and engine factories to research the Junkers Jumo engine and the TA 152 parts. He took a big gamble that allowed him to convert all of his day fighters to the TA in one fell swoop!
On Feb 11th I finally achieved critical damage to his aluminum refineries. On March 3rd, his aluminum production was 188 (below critical) and his AFAC resumed production. I renewed my attacks against his aluminum plants and on March 9th brought them to 162 and froze again his aircraft production.



Turner -> RE: Ta effectiveness. A game breaker? (8/30/2013 8:38:47 AM)

I believe the 152C we have in game is comparable to the A version that was historically available earlier but turned down by the RLM. With the difference that the A would not have been as effective as the C against fighters, but even more effective against bombers considering the very heavy cannon armament. The C had fuel tanks in the wings instead of outboard cannons extending range and endurance.



Gunnerchimp -> RE: Ta effectiveness. A game breaker? (9/9/2013 7:39:10 PM)

As the Luftwaffe, I find the P-47 & P-51 to be practically unbeatable,especially with the stock Me109G-6, so it's good to see there's hope for something to re-dress the balance! Right need to convert more factories.....



JeffroK -> RE: Ta effectiveness. A game breaker? (9/13/2013 10:33:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunnerchimp

As the Luftwaffe, I find the P-47 & P-51 to be practically unbeatable,especially with the stock Me109G-6, so it's good to see there's hope for something to re-dress the balance! Right need to convert more factories.....

At least this was historically correct and explains why the Luftwaffe lost so heavily.



Turner -> RE: Ta effectiveness. A game breaker? (9/14/2013 12:35:55 AM)

Why the RLM stubbornly continued production of the Bf109 I will never understand. It only proves the inept bereaucratic machinery of WW2 Germany where high command and administration knew very little of the operational conditions of Jagdflieger units. Political intrigue, personal prestige as well as profit interests and corruption all had very negative effects on the Luftwaffe even if its pilots were largely unaware of it. Göring however was a blatantly arrogant corrupt pig, to him the war was more of a inconvenience than anything else.

The difference is striking when you see how the Soviet aviation industry was mobilized, and the British and US aircraft manufacturers were organized. Germany however did not enjoy the abundance of resources in raw materials that the allies did, which really was what kept the Me262 from becoming a deciding factor in the air.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.84375