Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Porkins

IL-2 Pacific Campaign Ideas

Recommended Posts

Not true.  B-17s were the mainstay of the Pacific Bomber force in early 1942 and the defense of Port Moresby.  Certainly not on the scale of the 8th Air Force in Europe, but B-17s in fact did raid Rabaul as they were one of the few Aircraft with the range to get there and theoretically, they could defend themselves.  LONG before they gained fame in England, they were battling it out against the Japanese.  To leave them out would be like leaving out the He-111 at Stalingrad

Like I already explained strategic bombers are not well fitting into the game technicly. And while they flew strategic missions, none of them acted in a close air support or anti ship role, which is what a PTO map will certainly be focused on.

 

Again a B-25 or Cataline would do better in that role (Caty would be very interesting because: 1. It'd the first float plane, 2. Because it has anti ship armarment, 3. because it could be used for a variety of missions including transport, reconissence and SAR).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again a B-25 or Cataline would do better in that role (Caty would be very interesting because: 1. It'd the first float plane, 2. Because it has anti ship armarment, 3. because it could be used for a variety of missions including transport, reconissence and SAR).

 

Ah, the Catalina! My granddad would always tell me about how lovely it was to fly, yet how extremely and painfully slow it was. Quoting, the Catalina and the Ju-52 were both so slow they made the DC-3 feel like a racing aircraft, and the latter was already considered a slug by all means :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be slow but it's rugged and got it where it counts :)  Float planes in RoF are great fun so I'm sure it would be a personal favourite for many.

 

There probably isn't any aircraft standing in higher contrast to the rather quick, manouvreable japanese types of bombers (G3M, G4M, Ki-21) of the early-mid war period.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would also be the hardest to fly, even when you cut down distances with closes airfields it is still very hard to navigate.  

I'm curious why you say that? I'm aware that the Pacific theater was very treacherous for pilots in general, lots of planes went down simply because they got lost or ran into difficult flying conditions in the Pacific. But despite the fact that BoS is more of a sim, I don't know how you could get lost with the way points and in flight map in the corner of the screen. I'm sure some players like to turn off those assists to add to the realism and challenge, but I figure those folks are the ones who would be thrilled at trying to navigate the treacherous and vast spaces of the Pacific with nothing but their instruments. 

Edited by Porkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pacific is my favorite theater and I hope this game heads in that direction. That being said, I don't care where they go next as long as they get the heck out of the eastern front. If it doesn't, it's going to remain dead and only have 2 servers with people in them like it is now. Expand the theater and get US and British planes into the mix and the community will grow and we won't be stuck having to fly on Russian servers. No offense, but other than the terrible ping issue, they seem to be plagued with those that have no idea what a runway is, ramming, vulching...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pacific is my favorite theater and I hope this game heads in that direction. That being said, I don't care where they go next as long as they get the heck out of the eastern front. If it doesn't, it's going to remain dead and only have 2 servers with people in them like it is now. Expand the theater and get US and British planes into the mix and the community will grow and we won't be stuck having to fly on Russian servers. No offense, but other than the terrible ping issue, they seem to be plagued with those that have no idea what a runway is, ramming, vulching...

I agree with everything here except the last sentence. That behavior has been the norm in flightsims for decades and has little to do with the nationality of the server or pilot.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with everything here except the last sentence. That behavior has been the norm in flightsims for decades and has little to do with the nationality of the server or pilot.

Well, some nations exceed in that. Over 15 years on warbirds, Il-2s, Aces High and so on I saw dramas started or ended mainly by Polish, German or Russian squadrons ( not only of course). But that was always related to a certain level of elitism and race for best stats. Some put their ego into this and thats never been good.

 

 

I'm curious why you say that? I'm aware that the Pacific theater was very treacherous for pilots in general, lots of planes went down simply because they got lost or ran into difficult flying conditions in the Pacific. But despite the fact that BoS is more of a sim, I don't know how you could get lost with the way points and in flight map in the corner of the screen. I'm sure some players like to turn off those assists to add to the realism and challenge, but I figure those folks are the ones who would be thrilled at trying to navigate the treacherous and vast spaces of the Pacific with nothing but their instruments. 

Oh well, I assumed no waypoints and gps. Navigating aircraft without those over the ocean is a real challenge even for experts.  And that adds a lot of immersion, sending some players to scout the enemy territory or look for enemy fleet, then asking them to give information on the enemies position and course and eventually directing an attack on given position ... thats how it should look like. 

Edited by =LD=Hiromachi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiromachi,

 

I think you may have misunderstood. I was referring/disagreeing only the last sentence regarding ATC antics, ramming and vulching. This behavior is not tied to server or nationality in any way. Douchey behavior is the individual player's responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I already explained strategic bombers are not well fitting into the game technicly. And while they flew strategic missions, none of them acted in a close air support or anti ship role, which is what a PTO map will certainly be focused on.

 

Again a B-25 or Cataline would do better in that role (Caty would be very interesting because: 1. It'd the first float plane, 2. Because it has anti ship armarment, 3. because it could be used for a variety of missions including transport, reconissence and SAR).

Not at true statement. Despite the USN getting most of the visibility, B-17's were part of the Battle of Midway and carried out low-lever bombing runs on the IJN carriers - one of which flew right down the flight deck of the Akagi so low, deck crews dived for the deck plates.

 

As for campaigns, I would love to see a Solomons map, Midway, Coral Sea, and the Cactus Air Force. If a Hellcat ever makes it out, I hope THIS TIME they give it the superior power to weigh supremacy over the Zero it was suppose to have. The F-6F in IL2: 1946 flew like it had an ACME Anvil stowed in the tail.

 

V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The B-17 was active but mostly mis-used and ineffective in the PTO - including that Midway encounter. Between the history and game limitations it is completely unnecessary for this theater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at true statement. Despite the USN getting most of the visibility, B-17's were part of the Battle of Midway and carried out low-lever bombing runs on the IJN carriers - one of which flew right down the flight deck of the Akagi so low, deck crews dived for the deck plates.

Those were not B-17s but four B-26s which carried a torpedo attack, the one that flew about 10 feet above the bridge of the Akagi was probably piloted by 1st Lt. Herbert Mayes, damaged in process by Zeros and AA.

 

If a Hellcat ever makes it out, I hope THIS TIME they give it the superior power to weigh supremacy over the Zero it was suppose to have. The F-6F in IL2: 1946 flew like it had an ACME Anvil stowed in the tail.

 

I'm not sure what you mean or what you are expecting but for your information F6F-3 (with P&W R-2800-10) and F6F-5 (with P&W R-2800-10W so with water injection) had power loading of 0.16 and  0.17 hp/lb respectively. A6M5 in had  0.19 hp/lb. Dont know what F6F is supposed to have but climb or acceleration are not the things that warbird is famous for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand by my quote above. I have "flown" for decades in combat flight sims and have hundreds of hours in BOS/BOM. Show me any server in the history of sims where cross country takeoffs, vulching and ramming do not take place on a fairly consistent level. It can't even be denied in a rhetorcial sense.

 

I do fly in the local early AM for the most part. The antisocial bahaviors found online are that of individuals, nothing more - nothing less, and have been more or less consistent/ongoing through many sims for my entire online career. Vultures = Spawn Campers. There are also noobs, gamers, smart ass kids and cranky old farts in every generation of simmers.

 

To imply it has anything to do with region or culture is, at best, disingenuous.

Edited by [LBS]HerrMurf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on topic:

 

@Hiromachi - thanks for the clarification, upon further review of Midway (once I got home): B17's only attempted high altitude attacks on the Japanese surface forces without success. There is a claim of strafing by a B17 but I find it unlikely. All of the records and photo from B17's during the conflict indicate they were at typical strategic bombing heights.

Edited by [LBS]HerrMurf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No mate it hasn't. Really really don't wanna blame anyone. But i have around 800 hours of BoS multiplayer behind me. And from the very beginning till i stopped flying the open servers, apart from testing purposes, i got the same picture again and again and again. If i fly early German hours, where there are mainly people from GMT+3 till GMT+8 (i don't mention any particular nation, you can google what country(s) there is/are) i see exactly what Vidar was talking about, in addition loads of loads of disconnects, when you shoot some plane up, before it gets officially killed. When i fly later hours, where mainly people from GMT+1 till GMT-9 are online, i very rarely see that behaviour..almost nothing in that respect. In fact, i have never seen anyone disconnecting when i shot him up after 12 o'clock German times.

With 800 hours, and seeing how this goes again and again and again, that is way to much "critical information mass", to be any sort of coincidence. Due to your timezone, you might never ever meat the time, when this stuff happens, you would have to play early morning, to meet *them*. But that doesn't make it less true.Sorry for off topic, but just had to get rid of this....

 

Why don't you just say what you mean instead of hiding behind a load of bull**** double talk....

 

I can only assume that you blame all ills of MP on the East African and Western Australian Community?

 

I Really really don't wanna say this is offensive...but I am going to anyway, quite why this xenophobic rhetoric should be in a Pacific Campaign thread also baffles me

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be also be offended  if someone called out all German players in the same way.

 

You will notice I did not call you Xenaphobic, but that this kind of rhetoric has no place here

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, B-17s were active but (correct me pls if I'm heavily mistaken) were not of great use to the island "hopping" campaign in the pacific especially in mid war. Smaller medium bombres were better suitd for the pacific anyway due to fact bases were often build in a rush and some plane simply were to big to operate from close airbases.

 

So yea, I hold my point including the technical (and gameplay) difficulties heavy bombers would bring to the game, at least for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A peak of 168 B-17 bombers were in the Pacific theater in September 1942, with all groups converting to other types by mid-1943.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone interested there is a good wiki page on the 5 Bombardment groups using B-17's in the Pacific, and: Fortress Against the Sun by Gene E Salecker has a full history

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-17_Flying_Fortress_units_of_the_United_States_Army_Air_Forces

 

while I would love to see a B-17 I feel a B-25 would be as much fun (and useful in Med Europe and East front  ;) )

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Hiromachi - thanks for the clarification, upon further review of Midway (once I got home): B17's only attempted high altitude attacks on the Japanese surface forces without success. There is a claim of strafing by a B17 but I find it unlikely. All of the records and photo from B17's during the conflict indicate they were at typical strategic bombing heights.

Those B-17s  were under command of Lt. Col. Walter C. Sweeney,  had been sent aloft at 04:30 to attack Tanaka’s transport ships, only to be later redirected north by Midway as soon as the Japanese carriers had been detected. They were flying approximately at 20,000 feet and appeared about at the same time as Major Lofton R. Henderson leading sixteen VMSB-241 SBDs. B-17s could hardly meet any resistance as all CAP Zeros were focused on SBDs which were flying from the opposite direction and eventually suffered heavy casualties. 

B-17s split into three groups and went after Akagi, Soryu and Hiry in an almost leisurely fashion. The Japanese began banging away with their heavy AA guns, but the Americans were never in any great danger. In the course of the twenty-minute-long series of runs, both Hiry and Soryu were bracketed by decently near misses, to the consternation of the Japanese. In the end, though, the American heavies scored no damage. Eventually B-17s were attacked by nine Soryu A6M2s which returned from an attack on Midway installations as well as five A6M2s from Kaga under command of Ens. Yamaguchi Hiroyuki who was launched right after B-17s passed. However all those fighters scored little to nothing, being only able to damage few B-17s in process. 

 

For anyone interested there is a good wiki page on the 5 Bombardment groups using B-17's in the Pacific, and: Fortress Against the Sun by Gene E Salecker has a full history

Huh, I was afraid someone would bring that crap story of Old 666 :)

 

 

while I would love to see a B-17 I feel a B-25 would be as much fun (and useful in Med Europe and East front   ;) )

And B-26 would be even better :P

 

 

Afaik, I found a very cool video showing FSX P-40 C I believe, and no only their P-40 is great but most importantly video shows how flying over the southern Burma would look like :

 

And thats only a small part of the whole country ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always wanted to see how Ryu Ichi-go Sakusen operation would look in game ^^

P40 against Ki84? Would probably be a little one-sided  :dry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P40 against Ki84? Would probably be a little one-sided  :dry:

No. Ryū-ichi-gō sakusen (Operation Dragon No. 1) was a daylight air raid on Calcutta, executed jointly by the Japanese Army and Navy Air Forces on 5 December 1943. Participating units were 12th and 98th Sentai (18 Ki-21 Army bombers), 33rd, 50th and 64th Sentai (74 Ki-43 Army fighters), 705th Kōkūtai (9 G4M Navy bombers) and 331st Kōkūtai (27 A6M Navy fighters).

One of the few examples of combined Navy-Army actions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Ryū-ichi-gō sakusen (Operation Dragon No. 1) was a daylight air raid on Calcutta, executed jointly by the Japanese Army and Navy Air Forces on 5 December 1943. Participating units were 12th and 98th Sentai (18 Ki-21 Army bombers), 33rd, 50th and 64th Sentai (74 Ki-43 Army fighters), 705th Kōkūtai (9 G4M Navy bombers) and 331st Kōkūtai (27 A6M Navy fighters).

One of the few examples of combined Navy-Army actions. 

Ah ok, confused it with Ichi-go-Sakusen. I still think Guadalcanal would be best for a wide field of aircraft - both sides had combined naval/army aircraft..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at true statement. Despite the USN getting most of the visibility, B-17's were part of the Battle of Midway and carried out low-lever bombing runs on the IJN carriers - one of which flew right down the flight deck of the Akagi so low, deck crews dived for the deck plates.

 

Not a B-17 in this episode, but a B-26 Marauder torpedo plane. None of the 4 Marauder involved in the attack hit anything... As well the B-17 high altitude attacks.

 

http://www.pacificwar.org.au/webgraphics/Midway/Shot_across_Bow_SM.jpg

 

The point is the (relative small) map size allowed by game engine have no place for strategic bombers, as well the typical way players tend use planes in CFG. B-17's for bombing the nearest airfield 10 km away from 500 meters of altitude?

 

 

 

in addition loads of loads of disconnects, when you shoot some plane up, before it gets officially killed.

 

Alt+F4, the modern version of 1998/9 Aces High/Warbirds "pull the cable".   :lol: 

Edited by Sokol1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alt+F4, the modern version of 1998/9 Aces High/Warbirds "pull the cable".   :lol: 

Stat warriors, they care nothing for the historical scenarios or teamplay. Only their position in ranking matters. There was always that group in warbirds, 1946, aces high and they are now in bos and dcs. Just immature behavior. 

 

Afaik, it seems the interview with Saburo Sakai (or first part of it) received subtitles so if anyone is interested :

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I already explained strategic bombers are not well fitting into the game technicly. And while they flew strategic missions, none of them acted in a close air support or anti ship role, which is what a PTO map will certainly be focused on.

 

Again a B-25 or Cataline would do better in that role (Caty would be very interesting because: 1. It'd the first float plane, 2. Because it has anti ship armarment, 3. because it could be used for a variety of missions including transport, reconissence and SAR).

 

 

5Tuka that is such a relief to hear you say that, because the B-17 was never flown as a strategic bomber in the Pacific.  So it'll be a great fit!

 

Sarcasm aside, the only reason the B-17 was brought up was because it was the mainstay of the USAAC in the Pacific, particularly from Mar '42 - Aug '43 which coincides exactly with the Port Moresby suggestion I made.  But even then I added that the B-26 would be a better fit, but only due to the fact that 4 engine planes have unofficially been said to be off the table right now due to AI and engine limitations for the AI crew.

 

Bottom line though if you do a Port Moresby release, then B-17 is absolutely in play as a major contributor as is the B-26, and one could further argue were present, numbers measured in hundreds, sufficient to exceed that of the Macchi 202 at Stalingrad.  And I think its apparent how the Devs feel about the Macchi's fitting in despite numbering in the 10s...

 

If its a Guadalcanal release less so, because by that time the B-17s were being replaced in theater with B-24. Most B-17s were too war weary from just a few months of intense combat in the SoPac were sent stateside while any replacements were marked for Europe.  

Yes, B-17s were active but (correct me pls if I'm heavily mistaken) were not of great use to the island "hopping" campaign in the pacific especially in mid war. Smaller medium bombres were better suitd for the pacific anyway due to fact bases were often build in a rush and some plane simply were to big to operate from close airbases.

 

So yea, I hold my point including the technical (and gameplay) difficulties heavy bombers would bring to the game, at least for now.

 

 

You are right.  They were not used in the Island hopping campaign of 43-45,....but the B-24 was!!!!  Whose for the B-24 in the great Island hopping Campaign that 5tuka just suggested we need!?!?

 

And you are 100% incorrect that smaller medium bombers were more suited for the Pacific.  Anywhere they could be based 4 engine Heavy bombers were absolutely used as they had the range necessary to reach targets across the vast open expanses that the Pacific had.  Range was king in the Pacific, and 4 engine bombers have that in spades over medium bombers.

 

I've played other sims where Heavy Bombers had no gameplay difficulties.  They were just fun to have, and fun to fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those were not B-17s but four B-26s which carried a torpedo attack, the one that flew about 10 feet above the bridge of the Akagi was probably piloted by 1st Lt. Herbert Mayes, damaged in process by Zeros and AA.

 

I'm not sure what you mean or what you are expecting but for your information F6F-3 (with P&W R-2800-10) and F6F-5 (with P&W R-2800-10W so with water injection) had power loading of 0.16 and  0.17 hp/lb respectively. A6M5 in had  0.19 hp/lb. Dont know what F6F is supposed to have but climb or acceleration are not the things that warbird is famous for. 

Absolutely correct. I realized that later after I wrote this. Thanx for the correction.

 

V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...