Developer Diary, Part 173 - Discussion

[Jade_Monkey]

That's the American perspective, those are the theatres you can relate to

 

Their biggest markets are Russia and Germany. Enthusiasm for the Pacific in those areas is generally low, comparable to the American one for the Soviet front.

 

I'm confident that once both theatres have three or so expansions we'll see the liberation of Europe in 1944 modelled, and probably alternated releases.

Just to be clear, im from Spain, hence my strong preference for the Mediterranean scenarios.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Ah, my bad! Hello, neighbour

[56RAF_Roblex]

 

With the maps of the Pacific, I think it will happen as it did with those of IL-2 Sturmovik de Oleg. At first they were a novelty, but soon nobody wanted to fly hours over hundreds of kilometers on a blue-gray surface (sea). In the Pacific there were only a few air combats that lasted more than a week or two, maybe the Japanese front , Chinese and Russian

 

 

I have to disagree.  I played IL2 from its first release until CLoD was usable.  I never saw any lack of interest in flying off carriers.   I agree that some the SP campaigns were a bit boring but online people loved flying off carriers.    The lack of real life campaigns is irrelevant.  The campaign can just be one long Battle Of The Coral sea launching each day to bomb the enemy fleet or protect your fleet. Online the servers can do much the same as currently TAW, WOL & Finnish Dynamic are not recreating any particular day of real life fighting.   Add in some islands to attack carriers from or attack from carriers and there is plenty of variety

[Trooper117]

I have no real interest in carrier warfare, but I'll follow along with the team and hope for some pacific action on Guadalcanal later... that and Malaya or Burma will have my only interest in a pacific scenario.

[Yogiflight]

 

 

But if you want to test, i can run the mission on my server.

Thanks Habu, but I am planning to upgrade to a 1060 until end of the year, anyway.

[ShamrockOneFive]

 

It's just a personal thought

 

The problem I see on the Pacific air front (Battle of Midway) is that it will be very difficult to do a pilot campaign mode as it was 4 days of fighting. The Pacific Maps also do not serve to make an online campaign on servers where they win or lose territory according to the actions of the participants.

 

I know that the development team has chosen it as a product that is very much wanted by the USA market. I think the map that contains more markets is D-Day and later battles, because it is interesting for the market where there were countries involved in WWII like USA, England, Canada and pilots from all over the Commonwealth, Poland, France, Republica Czech and Germany ... But perhaps it is a niche market that is already touched by another developer like Digital Combat Simulator World, and perhaps CoD. But it is the air front where you can fly: Bf-109 | FW-190 | Spitfire | Hurricane | P-51 | P-47 | P-38 | Mosquito | Typhoon and all kinds of bombers.

 

With the maps of the Pacific, I think it will happen as it did with those of IL-2 Sturmovik de Oleg. At first they were a novelty, but soon nobody wanted to fly hours over hundreds of kilometers on a blue-gray surface (sea). In the Pacific there were only a few air combats that lasted more than a week or two, maybe the Japanese front , Chinese and Russian

 

 

Fully agree that post D-Day tactical scenarios are a distinct possibility for future installments and make just as much sense as going to the Pacific. But... you have to understand that the Pacific is in a special place for American consumers and I'm guessing we'll see quite a lot of interest in this theatre. If the goal is to tap into that larger market, the Pacific is the way to do it and do it with some battles that are well known.

 

Also I encourage you to read up about the New Guinea and Solomons campaigns. Constant air warfare for prolonged periods of time. So far we know its Midway and Okinawa but we don't know if they intend to shoehorn some other options in there.... They may. An early Guadalcanal scenario would be absolutely fascinating and fit the Midway aircraft set just fine.

 

Jason has proven to be pretty cunning and I get the sense that he's really thought the whole thing through. Kuban is turning into a major upgrade for the series. We don't yet know the full plan for Midway so I think we'll need to sit tight and see but I'm sure he's read and maybe already knows some of the critiques and has plans for working through them one way or another.

 

I can say that carrier ops, if done right, will be incredibly fun and fulfilling on their own.

[Habu]

Thanks Habu, but I am planning to upgrade to a 1060 until end of the year, anyway.

Ok, keep in mind that it's all your PC which should be changed. The change of the graphic card will give you more PFS, but just a little bit. So if you have a friend which have a more powerfull graphic card, ask him if you can run some test. If you can, take a 1070. Take at least 4 GB of memory on the grahic card. If i remember, nvidia will release the new model next year, maybe it would be wise to wait the new one.

[sniperton]

I can say that carrier ops, if done right, will be incredibly fun and fulfilling on their own.

 

Sure, but it's a long way to Tipperary. With the current pre-order system we can use each piece of new gadget and technology as soon as they are cleared for release. We proceed one by one and step by step, and this is also essential for funding the project. You cannot do that with a fully-fledged see operation like Midway where both sides operated from carriers. There you need at least one functional carrier, one figher, and one bomber for both sides to start with playing. A lot of new models and techs need to be developed to get there, and it still will be a torso until the rest of the ships and planes are finished.

If I were the devs I would start with a land-based operation with a lot of water around (could be even a semi-fictional MP map), would add a few Japanese planes first (by then we'll have 4 allied land-based types), then I would proceed as usual, by adding new naval techs and models one by one, carriers last.

After all, a carrier is the most advanced and most complex naval weapon system of WWII, and carriers coming late in the game are better than carriers coming flawed in the game.

[1/JSpan_Wind75]

Fully agree that post D-Day tactical scenarios are a distinct possibility for future installments and make just as much sense as going to the Pacific. But... you have to understand that the Pacific is in a special place for American consumers and I'm guessing we'll see quite a lot of interest in this theatre. If the goal is to tap into that larger market, the Pacific is the way to do it and do it with some battles that are well known.

 

Also I encourage you to read up about the New Guinea and Solomons campaigns. Constant air warfare for prolonged periods of time. So far we know its Midway and Okinawa but we don't know if they intend to shoehorn some other options in there.... They may. An early Guadalcanal scenario would be absolutely fascinating and fit the Midway aircraft set just fine.

 

Jason has proven to be pretty cunning and I get the sense that he's really thought the whole thing through. Kuban is turning into a major upgrade for the series. We don't yet know the full plan for Midway so I think we'll need to sit tight and see but I'm sure he's read and maybe already knows some of the critiques and has plans for working through them one way or another.

 

I can say that carrier ops, if done right, will be incredibly fun and fulfilling on their own.

 

It is clear that I agree that developers know better than anyone else who is most interested in them right now. And we all know that the US market is very important to the economy of the 777 team.

 

Sure, but it's a long way to Tipperary. With the current pre-order system we can use each piece of new gadget and technology as soon as they are cleared for release. We proceed one by one and step by step, and this is also essential for funding the project. You cannot do that with a fully-fledged see operation like Midway where both sides operated from carriers. There you need at least one functional carrier, one figher, and one bomber for both sides to start with playing. A lot of new models and techs need to be developed to get there, and it still will be a torso until the rest of the ships and planes are finished.

If I were the devs I would start with a land-based operation with a lot of water around (could be even a semi-fictional MP map), would add a few Japanese planes first (by then we'll have 4 allied land-based types), then I would proceed as usual, by adding new naval techs and models one by one, carriers last.

After all, a carrier is the most advanced and most complex naval weapon system of WWII, and carriers coming late in the game are better than carriers coming flawed in the game.

 

It may be that building all the necessary models to represent a battle like Midway will consume a lot of work and will be a project for many months. We will have to wait.

 

In any case develop the map or maps that are with its elements I am sure will be very well done as everything done so far.

[actionhank1786]

Fully agree that post D-Day tactical scenarios are a distinct possibility for future installments and make just as much sense as going to the Pacific. But... you have to understand that the Pacific is in a special place for American consumers and I'm guessing we'll see quite a lot of interest in this theatre. If the goal is to tap into that larger market, the Pacific is the way to do it and do it with some battles that are well known.

 

Also I encourage you to read up about the New Guinea and Solomons campaigns. Constant air warfare for prolonged periods of time. So far we know its Midway and Okinawa but we don't know if they intend to shoehorn some other options in there.... They may. An early Guadalcanal scenario would be absolutely fascinating and fit the Midway aircraft set just fine.

 

Jason has proven to be pretty cunning and I get the sense that he's really thought the whole thing through. Kuban is turning into a major upgrade for the series. We don't yet know the full plan for Midway so I think we'll need to sit tight and see but I'm sure he's read and maybe already knows some of the critiques and has plans for working through them one way or another.

 

I can say that carrier ops, if done right, will be incredibly fun and fulfilling on their own.

I love the idea of Carrier Ops in the game. I re-installed Il-2 1946 just so I could play with the carriers again. It was always a lot of fun to practice landing in a storm...granted I never got good at it...or landing in general. But, win some, lose some, right?

[ShamrockOneFive]

Sure, but it's a long way to Tipperary. With the current pre-order system we can use each piece of new gadget and technology as soon as they are cleared for release. We proceed one by one and step by step, and this is also essential for funding the project. You cannot do that with a fully-fledged see operation like Midway where both sides operated from carriers. There you need at least one functional carrier, one figher, and one bomber for both sides to start with playing. A lot of new models and techs need to be developed to get there, and it still will be a torso until the rest of the ships and planes are finished.

If I were the devs I would start with a land-based operation with a lot of water around (could be even a semi-fictional MP map), would add a few Japanese planes first (by then we'll have 4 allied land-based types), then I would proceed as usual, by adding new naval techs and models one by one, carriers last.

After all, a carrier is the most advanced and most complex naval weapon system of WWII, and carriers coming late in the game are better than carriers coming flawed in the game.

 

You make a good point. I wrote at some point that it would be ideal to start early access with some sort of island airbase setup (a dogfight map?) and start off with the Zero versus Wildcat (and P-40E for owners of that). That'd give the series an introductory start for the Pacific and also get a bunch of fans making some YouTube videos for added interest.

 

We flew from Lapino for months before Stalingrad map became available. So... we'll see!

[Frequent_Flyer]

That's the American perspective, those are the theatres you can relate to

 

Their biggest markets are Russia and Germany. Enthusiasm for the Pacific in those areas is generally low, comparable to the American one for the Soviet front.

 

I'm confident that once both theatres have three or so expansions we'll see the liberation of Europe in 1944 modelled, and probably alternated releases.

 

The reality is the Eastern Front is boring with little variance and essentially two planes for each side a 109- whatever or a 190-whatever a Yak-whatever and a La-whatever. Small, slow ,under armed escorting a couple aircraft to  a convoy of  trucks at the end of the grass run way. The PTO, MTO or Western Europe are infinitely more interesting in every conceivable way.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Frequent_Flyer

[Finkeren]

The reality is the Eastern Front is boring with little variance and essentially two planes for each side a 109- whatever or a 190-whatever a Yak-whatever and a La-whatever. Small, slow ,under armed escorting a couple aircraft to a convoy of trucks at the end of the grass run way. The PTO, MTO or Western Europe are infinitely more interesting in every conceivable way.

This could not be further from the truth.

 

The Eastern Front is arguably the most varied theater when it comes to planeset and landscape.

[Finkeren]

You could not be more incorrect it was insignificant and

 

 

Expressing an opinion share by most who have just a passing knowledge of WW II air warfare. I was a tactical affair that had little influence on the outcome of the war. Essentially an extension of WW I. Small groups of aircraft attacking insignificant low value targets.

Wow...

 

Gotta stay out of this one. Don't want to derail the thread any further. Suffice to say, that you have no appreciation of what the Eastern Front actually was, if you consider its air operations insignificant.

[Haza]

Wow...

 

Gotta stay out of this one. Don't want to derail the thread any further. Suffice to say, that you have no appreciation of what the Eastern Front actually was, if you consider its air operations insignificant.

 

To be honest, if Hans/Jason and the team can make a Brick fly I will buy it and give it a go, although it must be a London built Brick!

Whether we agree or disagree about the various air campaigns, I like to think that we are joined in our support of 1C Game Studios and 777.  

 

Therefore, perhaps this is not the forum to start judging about this period or what it really meant, as this period for some was 1939-1945 and others 1941-1945 and that perhaps might generate a whole different discussion, without any mention of 1914-1918 or 1916-1918, as WW1 was mentioned above, coming myself from a military family of 1914-1918 and 1939-1945!

 

Let's all be civil here and RESPECTFUL!  

 

Regards

 

 

EDIT: Finkeren, this is not directed at you or a dig as I was just adding to your valid point!!

Edited October 6, 2017 by Haza

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Moving on from the cheeky kid, one really exciting campaign which worked amazingly well in 1946 and would make use of both the current plane set and 1944 aircraft like the La-5FN is the advance into the Baltics. The nature of the theatre allows for a pretty varied set of missions, one more dangerous than the other, and a relatively long time frame.

[Finkeren]

EDIT: Finkeren, this is not directed at you or a dig as I was just adding to your valid point!!

No worries, I got that, and in any case I have no interest in dragging this thread down, so I won't respond any further to this.

[Max_Damage]

You could not be more incorrect it was insignificant and

 

 

Expressing an opinion share by most who  have just a passing knowledge of WW II air warfare. I was a tactical affair that had little influence on the outcome of the war. Essentially an extension of WW I. Small groups of aircraft attacking insignificant low value targets. 

Oh lol. Just two simple facts for history channel fans like you.

 

1) the rate of losses in LW has never been higher then during 1941 Barbarossa before or after it anywhere.

2) LW lost 80+% its forces on the soviet front.

 

When they release the pacific i really have no idea what to do with it a bunch of slow turnfighters vs a bunch of inept curtiss p40. I think ill just pass by. It will cost a ton of money for what?

Edited October 6, 2017 by Max_Damage

[=RvE=Windmills]

The reality is the Eastern Front is boring with little variance and essentially two planes for each side a 109- whatever or a 190-whatever a Yak-whatever and a La-whatever. Small, slow ,under armed escorting a couple aircraft to  a convoy of  trucks at the end of the grass run way. The PTO, MTO or Western Europe are infinitely more interesting in every conceivable way.

 

American planes energy fight and they win, American planes turn they die.

 

Japanese planes waiting for american planes to make the mistake of turning, sit there picking their nose until that happens because they don't stand chance in hell of ever catching a US plane.

 

Might as well slap a US skin on any 109 and slap a Japanese skin on an I16 and let them have it out. There you go you got the PTO matchup right there.

[Cpt_Cool]

I suspect Battle of Midway is going to make most of its money by tapping into a different market, bringing in new players. Not to knock a very loyal customer base the series has already built.

[CIA_Yankee_]

American planes energy fight and they win, American planes turn they die.

 

Japanese planes waiting for american planes to make the mistake of turning, sit there picking their nose until that happens because they don't stand chance in hell of ever catching a US plane.

 

Might as well slap a US skin on any 109 and slap a Japanese skin on an I16 and let them have it out. There you go you got the PTO matchup right there.

 

Well, to be fair, the Wildcat couldn't out E the Zero either. The only thing the Wildcat had going for it was superior dive speed and durability.

 

Of course, that doesn't mean the Wildcat couldn't hold its own... but that was far more a factor of adapting tactics and teamwork than any edge it had over the Zero (the Tach Weave is the perfect example of how superior maneuverability can be negated by proper teamwork).

 

Later on, with the advent of the Hellcat and the likes, the situation was definitely more like you describe. 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

This could not be further from the truth.

 

The Eastern Front is arguably the most varied theater when it comes to planeset and landscape.

I generally consider your post pretty factual but this is quite a stretch. I'd challenge you to put up a planeset and landscape (and/or naval assets) that challenges the Med theater, even with the vast expanse of Mother Russia. You can make a case against landscape in the Pacific but considering all of the countries involved, including naval and army assets, even that theater is pretty varied over the six/seven years of combat.

Edited October 6, 2017 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[ShamrockOneFive]

I suspect Battle of Midway is going to make most of its money by tapping into a different market, bringing in new players. Not to knock a very loyal customer base the series has already built.

 

You may be right. I don't see that as a terrible thing either as many of us are in it for the WWII air experience regardless of the specific scenery or aircraft involved and if we can bring new people in maybe they will buy the other stuff.

 

The other thing I've been considering recently is that Battle of Kuban is cementing the series' East Front aircraft lineup far more effectively than I had first thought when it was announced. The La-5FN and Bf109G-6 along with the potential of seeing a Li-2 and Po-2 (from a third party contractor) mean that the aircraft set for the East from 1941 to late 1943 is actually quite robust. Fans of that part of the war will have a lot to fly for a long time while the series expands its diversity in other theatres. There's nothing to say that the third party contractor may continue to make aircraft for the East either while the 1CGS team works on the Pacific.

 

I'm thinking way ahead but what if the third party contractor went on to add an IAR80/81 and I-153 for Odessa in a years time for example? I don't want to get anyone too excited but there are reasons to be optimistic

[Finkeren]

I generally consider your post pretty factual but this is quite a stretch. I'd challenge you to put up a planeset and landscape (and/or naval assets) that challenges the Med theater, even with the vast expanse of Mother Russia. You can make a case against landscape in the Pacific but considering all of the countries involved, including naval and army assets, even that theater is pretty varied over the six/seven years of combat.

Thing is: pretty much all major types that saw action in the Med also saw action on the Eastern Front (with a handful of exceptions) to this we have to add all the Soviet types plus the ones flown by the smaller German allies (chiefly the Romanian types and the multitude of aircraft fielded by the Finns.

 

Yeah, I'll stand by my statement.

[unreasonable]

Oh lol. Just two simple facts for history channel fans like you.

 

1) the rate of losses in LW has never been higher then during 1941 Barbarossa before or after it anywhere.

2) LW lost 80+% its forces on the soviet front.

 

When they release the pacific i really have no idea what to do with it a bunch of slow turnfighters vs a bunch of inept curtiss p40. I think ill just pass by. It will cost a ton of money for what?

 

I like the Eastern front too, and the land war was vital to the outcome of the war as a whole, but that does not mean that I have to make up complete nonsense about the air war.

 

The highest rate of LW losses was not during Barbarossa - it was during 1944: in the West.

The LW did not lose 80% of it's forces on the Soviet front - the proportion was if anything roughly the reverse. The German Army is another matter.

 

There are plenty of sources with data available on the internet for anyone interested in the facts.

Edited October 6, 2017 by unreasonable

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Thing is: pretty much all major types that saw action in the Med also saw action on the Eastern Front (with a handful of exceptions) to this we have to add all the Soviet types plus the ones flown by the smaller German allies (chiefly the Romanian types and the multitude of aircraft fielded by the Finns.

 

Yeah, I'll stand by my statement.

Trade Soviet for American (gasp) and Italian types and I think you lose that bet.

 

I initially missed the Finnish statement but you are stretching to include that conflict. If you get that, I will throw in China/Burma/India for the Pacific or North Africa for the Med.

Edited October 6, 2017 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[=RvE=Windmills]

Well, to be fair, the Wildcat couldn't out E the Zero either. The only thing the Wildcat had going for it was superior dive speed and durability.

 

Of course, that doesn't mean the Wildcat couldn't hold its own... but that was far more a factor of adapting tactics and teamwork than any edge it had over the Zero (the Tach Weave is the perfect example of how superior maneuverability can be negated by proper teamwork).

 

Later on, with the advent of the Hellcat and the likes, the situation was definitely more like you describe. 

 

Have they confirmed the timeframe? I thought it would be later than Wildcats.

[Gambit21]

MIDWAY

[Cpt_Cool]

You may be right. I don't see that as a terrible thing either as many of us are in it for the WWII air experience regardless of the specific scenery or aircraft involved and if we can bring new people in maybe they will buy the other stuff.

 

The other thing I've been considering recently is that Battle of Kuban is cementing the series' East Front aircraft lineup far more effectively than I had first thought when it was announced. The La-5FN and Bf109G-6 along with the potential of seeing a Li-2 and Po-2 (from a third party contractor) mean that the aircraft set for the East from 1941 to late 1943 is actually quite robust. Fans of that part of the war will have a lot to fly for a long time while the series expands its diversity in other theatres. There's nothing to say that the third party contractor may continue to make aircraft for the East either while the 1CGS team works on the Pacific.

 

I'm thinking way ahead but what if the third party contractor went on to add an IAR80/81 and I-153 for Odessa in a years time for example? I don't want to get anyone too excited but there are reasons to be optimistic

 

I have my fingers crossed that the third party experiment is a smashing success. Extra help with aircraft and maps could go a long way to fleshing out theaters with established technology while Jason and the team focus on the theaters that require much more development. I have been hot for an BOX IAR 80/81 for years. 

[Finkeren]

Trade Soviet for American (gasp) and Italian types and I think you lose that bet.

 

I initially missed the Finnish statement but you are stretching to include that conflict. If you get that, I will throw in China/Burma/India for the Pacific or North Africa for the Med.

For the Finns I only mean the Continuation War - not the winter war.

 

As for the American planes: Most of them flew on the Eastern Front - the exceptions being the P-51 (VVS received a few for trials but they saw no combat), P-38, B-26 and of course the heavies. But P-39, P-40, A-20, B-25, P-47, Martin Maryland were there, as were a few American types, in the hands of the FiAF, that didn't see action in the Med: P-36 and Brewster.

 

As for the Italian types: A lot of them saw action in the East as well: MC. 200, MC. 202, Fiat G. 50 (Finns), Fiat CR. 42 (Hungary), Re.2000 (Hungary), SM.79 (IIRC) and SM.81.

 

Then of course there are the British types in service with both the VVS and FiAF, the Romanian types, the French Moranes of the FiAF and pretty much every single German type (except for some night fighters) - some of which didn't see any action in the Med.

 

I still think I'm winning that bet.

[JtD]

Both the US and the UK had naval aviation, which was used to a large extent in the Med, but not on the Eastern Front. "Pretty much all" is certainly not true, if it was "the majority" then maybe, yes.

 

As to the variety, it would probably be better to look at the numbers of specific aircraft, not just a simple yes/no. The P-47 doesn't really add to the variety on the Eastern front, because for practical purposes, it wasn't there. For every one P-47, you'd find like 200 Il-2's.

 

The P-36 was certainly used in the Med, by the French.

[PatrickAWlson]

Given a Midway product, I think a BoB "change history" type of campaign would make for the most enjoyable SP experience.  IMHO the historical 4 days or even an extended Coral Sea + Midway campaign is not enough for the type of "you are there" campaign that PWCG and 777's RoF campaign (and probably the upcoming BoX campaign) currently provide.  

 

So here goes an off the top of my head campaign design:

Dynamic.  Each side starts with some equipment and land ownership is defined.

Battles happen.  Results are recorded.  Next actions are determined,

You win or lose based on equipment loss or the ability to take territory. 

 

The territory can even be make believe.  A virtual map with some Islands for each side (where each island looks remarkably like Midway).  Develop a "Admiral/General" user interface where the player decides next actions.  The computer will also decide next actions.  The results will be some form of combat ... maybe a clash of carriers, maybe an invasion, maybe something else.  Eventually one sides air assets (both land based and sea based) are depleted resulting in loss of the campaign.

[Finkeren]

Both the US and the UK had naval aviation, which was used to a large extent in the Med, but not on the Eastern Front. "Pretty much all" is certainly not true, if it was "the majority" then maybe, yes.

 

As to the variety, it would probably be better to look at the numbers of specific aircraft, not just a simple yes/no. The P-47 doesn't really add to the variety on the Eastern front, because for practical purposes, it wasn't there. For every one P-47, you'd find like 200 Il-2's.

 

The P-36 was certainly used in the Med, by the French.

You are right about the P-36.

 

As for the British and US naval aviation: We are really not talking about a whole lot of different types, for practical reasons obviously.

 

If we are starting to look at numbers, we really shouldn't count the Gloster Gladiators of Malta and a host of other aircraft as well.

 

No matter how you square it, I just can't see the number of types that saw service in the Med ever outnumbering the entire Soviet Airforces.

 

The MTO is hugely varied (and a great setting for a flight sim) but I don't think it has the same variety in plane types that the Eastern Front does.

[JtD]

Well, I'd go with the Med, but it may depend on what one defines as 'a type' and what would constitute of 'a presence'.

 

USN and RN/FAA are easily contributing more than a dozen types, probably more than the Finnish air force adds to the Eastern Front. Which you were happy to mention. The Brewster, btw, was also present in the Med, it was operated by the FAA. No comparison to FAF, but still not absent.

 

What I'd say is that there's probably a larger geographical variety on the East, from the frozen North to the desert South. From sea to sea, with all sorts of lands in between.

I'd also say that there's probably a larger variety in the types of air war in the Med, due to the larger scale of strategic bombing and naval operations.

WRT types, would be interesting to find out, both saw lots of different aircraft, but really, definitions. Is the Il-2 one type or (half) a dozen? Was the Gladiator present in the Med or on the Eastern Front or both? Do we count transport or liaison aircraft? Trainers?

[Frequent_Flyer]

Oh lol. Just two simple facts for history channel fans like you.

 

1) the rate of losses in LW has never been higher then during 1941 Barbarossa before or after it anywhere.

2) LW lost 80+% its forces on the soviet front.

 

When they release the pacific i really have no idea what to do with it a bunch of slow turnfighters vs a bunch of inept curtiss p40. I think ill just pass by. It will cost a ton of money for what?

 

Wrong,- the Luftwaffe lost more aircraft to the west than on the eastern front. Check your facts .

[Frequent_Flyer]

I like the Eastern front too, and the land war was vital to the outcome of the war as a whole, but that does not mean that I have to make up complete nonsense about the air war.

 

The highest rate of LW losses was not during Barbarossa - it was during 1944: in the West.

The LW did not lose 80% of it's forces on the Soviet front - the proportion was if anything roughly the reverse. The German Army is another matter.

 

There are plenty of sources with data available on the internet for anyone interested in the facts.

 

Unreasonable you are correct. Furthermore because the VVS and the Luftwaffe were not capable of Strategic air warfare. IT took the Russians 6 years to get to Berlin, and the largest obstacle they had to cross was a river.The air war in the East was not a significant factor  the outcome of the war.No long range bomber nor a long range fighter between the Luftwaffe or VVS.

[Frequent_Flyer]

I generally consider your post pretty factual but this is quite a stretch. I'd challenge you to put up a planeset and landscape (and/or naval assets) that challenges the Med theater, even with the vast expanse of Mother Russia. You can make a case against landscape in the Pacific but considering all of the countries involved, including naval and army assets, even that theater is pretty varied over the six/seven years of combat.

 

 

American planes energy fight and they win, American planes turn they die.

 

Japanese planes waiting for american planes to make the mistake of turning, sit there picking their nose until that happens because they don't stand chance in hell of ever catching a US plane.

 

Might as well slap a US skin on any 109 and slap a Japanese skin on an I16 and let them have it out. There you go you got the PTO matchup right there.

 

 The Luftwaffe had the same problem with the US planes. The US aircraft were faster , could out dive them plus they had no problem turning with ,  out zoom climbing  either German fighter.The US performed better at altitude, had much longer range , better armed. So- you want pick a theater based on which of your favorite aircraft performs better than its adversary ? You are insulting the Zero by calling it a 109.

[LukeFF]

 

 

IT took the Russians 6 years to get to Berlin, and the largest obstacle they had to cross was a river.

 

There was also this large object called "land" between Berlin and Moscow.

 

 

 

No long range bomber nor a long range fighter between the Luftwaffe or VVS.

 

The Soviets bombed Berlin as early at August 1941 with their Pe-8s, as well as with their Il-4s. 

[Gambit21]

There was also this large object called "land" between Berlin and Moscow.

 

What? You mean hundreds of miles of freezing, tank infested land is hard to cross?

I don't buy it.

 

I suppose next you'll tell me that aircraft supporting the army and it's movement somehow played a huge part?

Nonsense!

 

 

 

I think FF found Raaid's random sentence generator.

[Finkeren]

Unreasonable you are correct. Furthermore because the VVS and the Luftwaffe were not capable of Strategic air warfare. IT took the Russians 6 years to get to Berlin, and the largest obstacle they had to cross was a river.The air war in the East was not a significant factor the outcome of the war.No long range bomber nor a long range fighter between the Luftwaffe or VVS.

I swore I wouldn't reply any further FrequentFlyer, but you're forcing my hand (plus the thread has been un-pinned now)

 

It took the USSR 6 years to get to Berlin??? Wrong sir, just wrong! The entire war between Germany and its allies vs. the Soviet Union lasted less than 4 years. The Red Army was pushed back all the way to Moscow and the Caucasus and fought its way back a couple thousands kilometers to Berlin in shorter time than it took the British Army to find its way back across the English Channel.

 

And no, the Soviet Union didn't focus on strategic bombing, because it was kinda busy fighting 3/4 of the entire German Army and its allies. The VVS was an integral part of that effort and for you to disparage that struggle and call it insignificant is more than just a little insulting.

Edited October 7, 2017 by Finkeren