Discussion on PHASE 2 - CONCEPT ETC...

A forum for design and development discussions regarding this multisector campaign.

Moderator: Petr

Post Reply
StG77_CountZero
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:38 pm
Location: Croatia, just below Slovenia

Discussion on PHASE 2 - CONCEPT ETC...

Post by StG77_CountZero » Wed Jan 01, 2014 1:29 pm

As topic is locked we could talk about it in this topic:

Reading post PHASE 2 - CONCEPT ETC... on SEOW HQ forum, i have suggestion for 3 points:


1) in MAP ADJUSTMENTS FROM PHASE 1 TO PHASE 2


"1. Carrier launch zone moved to BI row (is now BN) to make it slightly more difficult to attack by Axis."

Its to mutch to West, with no-fly zone west from BB line to this new lanch point, BI line, its only 70km. For ships thats 1 mission to get and lanch airplanes and 1 mission to get back behined saefty of BB line.
Only 2 missions where Axis are able to attack and sunk Carrier or only 1 before he lanches airplanes. If we dont play night missions its not easy to servive to be able to hit carrier with 2-3 bombers in one mission. Old BN line to me looks OK for phase 2

2) in OPERATIONAL FOCUS OF PHASE 2

"d. Allied Carrier (HMS Furious) available pre-loaded with Spits/Hurri's (Allied commander's choice) starts within carrier launch zone. Planes need to be flown to Malta. Spits transferred this way will have a 2 mission refueling time. On mission 4, the spits will be set to no refueling delay as the other fighters."

So Carrier HMS Furious is in BI line at mission #1, and in first mission with no recon Axis have to attack that carrier. Allied commnder will probably send carrier in that first mission imidiatly to go back to BB line. It looks like Axis dont have a chance to sunk that first carrier group and first group of airplanes is lanched with no way for Axis to stop them.
I think its also not neccesery for airplanes flown to Malta to have 2 mission refuling time.


For me better option for this would be, now when we are starting from date when there was no Spitfiers on Malta, at start mission #1 that first carrier group is somwere behined BB line, at location from which it takes carrier atleast 2 missions to get to lanch zone for airplanes.
That would alove at best from mission #3 Allieds to start transfering airplanes to Malta. Axis then have 2 missions to fined and attack that first carrier group before it is able to lanch airplanes, and then no need to have refuling time for transfered airplanes, like it was in phase 1. And again no Spitfiers in air in first 2 missions, in 3rd mission they would be first time flown from Carriers to Malta.


3) in OPERATIONAL FOCUS OF PHASE 2

"a. Beaufighters and none carrier fighters/fighter bombers are not allowed to cross coast as per phase 1.
i. Beauforts? Allowed or not? "

Also agree that Beaufighters, and fighters or fighter/bombers should not be able to attack over Sicily

Regarding question on Beauforts, they have only 1x.303 in wing for strafing, so they would have to attack with bombs so i would alow Allieds to be able to attack over Sicily with Beauforts, same as with Wellingtons or Blenheims IV, Carrier bombers Swordfishe, SBD-3 and TBD-1 should also be alowed to attack over Sicily
Petr
Posts: 765
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:07 am

Post by Petr » Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:19 am

Hi Count,

Good remarks!

1. When looking at the historical situation, what you describe is fairly realistic and what actually happened. The British certainly tried to minimize the time of exposure when ferrying and no carrier was lost during these operations due to air forces. If memory serves, both the Ark Royal and Argus where lost due to UBoats.
A very good point you make is the round trip for these ferry operations, 4 missions seems like a very good duration for a round trip.
I'll put this down as one of the topics for discussioin.

2. I would have no problem with this approach. However, should the HMS Furious be sunk before the Spits can be launched, Malta will be in very dire straights indeed! TBD

3. OK, add to list F4F's.

Looking forward to hearing the Axis opinion.

Cheers,
Petr
StG77_CountZero
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:38 pm
Location: Croatia, just below Slovenia

Post by StG77_CountZero » Thu Jan 02, 2014 11:33 am

F4F-4 is fighter that is good for strafing so i dont think we should alow it to be able to attack targets on Sicily, when we have no fighters/heavy fighters over Sicily rule. We dont need bombs on it if we agre to have SBD-3 and TBD-1 on Wasp.




in LOADOUTS RESTRICTIONS:

ii. Bf-109F4 has bombs. (109's were used historically to bomb Malta) TBD

Yes they used them in 1942 like that, but in phase 1 it was good that they were not able to carry bombs only not good thing from Axis perspective was that Tomahawk Mk.A was able to carry bombs and Bf-109s didnt have that ability.

Now when Malta ground forces would be on map, they would be easy targets on that small island with such big number of Bf-109s avilabe to Axis side. There would then be no need to use bombers for that job. Bf-110Es or Ju88C6 are good for same tasks Bf-109 with bombs could be used, and we have limited number of them.

If its neccesary to use Bf-109s with bombs it should be limited number of Bf-109s that are able to carry bombs, maybe adding 16-24xBf-109F4/B in that case, and only with payload of 1x250kg, no gunpods droptanks or 4xSC50kg in payload.

If we dont have bombs on 109s, Axis fighters with bombs would only be Re-2000 (i would remove 88x2kg bombs on them, after seing hwo effective that is on parked airplanes, so only 2x100kg), Ju88C6 and Bf-110E in limited numbers.

And on Allied side only Fulmar and HurriBomber IIb (would like to see removed option for DT on them) should be alowed to cary bomb from fighters, and by rules they can not be used to bomb anything on Sicily.
HurriBomberIIbs primery reson for having bombs is to alove Allieds to have abillity to attack ground targets on island when Axis invade Malta.
Beaufighters are perfect also for attack on ground units invading Malta or ships carrying troops, so now when invasion has to happend its to risky to lose them in bomber killer tasks, and their numbers is also small.


20xHurriBomber IIc that needs to be flown in from carriers are supstitute for Spitfire Vc(4), so it should not be able to cary bombs. Perfect would be to have only number of HurriBomber IIc at start stationed on Malta able to cary bombs but thats not posible to do with same type of airplane, so we should use Hurricane IIc type for number of HurriBombers IIc that servive phase 1 and are stationed on Malta from start, and they should only be able to carry bombs, no option for DT on that type.
=VARP=Thor
Posts: 352
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 6:41 am
Location: Zagreb,Croatia

Post by =VARP=Thor » Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:24 pm

StG77_CountZero wrote:F4F-4 is fighter that is good for strafing so i dont think we should alow it to be able to attack targets on Sicily, when we have no fighters/heavy fighters over Sicily rule.
And it is good for almost nothing else:)... but can take heavy beating by 109's and have excellent range
StG77_CountZero wrote: If its neccesary to use Bf-109s with bombs it should be limited number of Bf-109s that are able to carry bombs, maybe adding 16-24xBf-109F4/B in that case, and only with payload of 1x250kg, no gunpods droptanks or 4xSC50kg in payload.


With all others bombers types on Axis side is it really necessary to use bombs on fighters? Especially when Ju87D3 is here!

StG77_CountZero wrote:If we dont have bombs on 109s, Axis fighters with bombs would only be Re-2000 (i would remove 88x2kg bombs on them, after seing how effective that is on parked airplanes, so only 2x100kg), Ju88C6 and Bf-110E in limited numbers.
Hmm,numbers are already ~30% more planes in favor to Axis side(as it should be),...also they will have more slots,and even with only 10% visible planes on the airports,it is a huge fat targets area in small pack...why would they even go for any other targets than this one if they want to prevent us from making resistant? Allowing the carpet bombing of airfields with fighters or bombers small bombs of 2kg is just funny:)


P.S. BTW I still think that P39's would be a good thing here because we are not going 100% historical anyway.



Cheers
=VARP=Thor
Posts: 352
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 6:41 am
Location: Zagreb,Croatia

Post by =VARP=Thor » Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:58 pm

I would like to have clear situation with paratroopers, so this should be answered (if i didn't miss something).

SITUATION EXAMPLE: Axis/Allied managed to make para drop on enemy harbor. Let say their paratroopers are below harbor plate. As you can see this will prevent defending side of destroying them from air,and at the same time attackers will block harbor capacity because they are closer than 1,5km.
Adding to that,every paratroop should be able to move free without HQ or there is no big use of them, which in the other hand lead us potentially to more disabled docs. We need good rule for that.

Overwhelming ratio should be changed to something like 4:1 weak force 8 to avoid too long fights to capture something.
Petr
Posts: 765
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:07 am

Post by Petr » Thu Jan 02, 2014 6:45 pm

=VARP=Thor wrote:I would like to have clear situation with paratroopers, so this should be answered (if i didn't miss something).

SITUATION EXAMPLE: Axis/Allied managed to make para drop on enemy harbor. Let say their paratroopers are below harbor plate. As you can see this will prevent defending side of destroying them from air,and at the same time attackers will block harbor capacity because they are closer than 1,5km.
Adding to that,every paratroop should be able to move free without HQ or there is no big use of them, which in the other hand lead us potentially to more disabled docs. We need good rule for that.

Overwhelming ratio should be changed to something like 4:1 weak force 8 to avoid too long fights to capture something.
Good points. I'll try to be cristal clear :wink:
Petr
Posts: 765
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:07 am

Post by Petr » Thu Jan 02, 2014 6:47 pm

the F4F is a carrier plane and is allowed to cross the coast. It is not a very good fighter but at least it is something to escort a potential carrier strike force.
Post Reply

Return to “The Scylla and Charybdis Lounge”