Have we talked about V-1s?

[ShamrockOneFive]

Battle of Bodenplatte takes place during a time where the V-1 was in active use against places like Amsterdam and I'm wondering if folks are interested in seeing it. I'm not sure if it even came up. I'm mostly interested in the "anti-diver" type missions that the RAF pursued against V-1 launch sites or Crossbow missions with the USAAF but I wouldn't mind trying to intercept them in flight or even tip them over using a wing. Interesting combat challenges above and beyond the typical air combat scenarios.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

I'm for all of the above!!!!

 

Could you imagine zooming over the Arden a tree top level and all of the sudden out of the corner of your eye you see a V1 blast off!!!

[sevenless]

I´m with you on this. Would spice things up a bit and would be a perfect scenarios for Tempest V  and Spitfire XIV flights (hint, hint). Oh and did I mention that also Mustang IIIs and Meteors were used for that purpose (in case we are running out of collector planes ;-))?

 

Good read here:

 

https://ospreypublishing.com/v1-flying-bomb-aces

[RedKestrel]

I know they did it in Il-2 1946. I tried the included intercept mission a few times. It was pretty cool. To see it done in new-Il-2 would be really cool! 

[CanadaOne]

I think we flew V1 intercepts in Janes WWII Fighters. That was a long time ago.

 

Would love to see it here!

[Legioneod]

This would be pretty sweet to see, never done it before so I'm pretty interested in trying it.

 

Would give the devs even more reason to add some real hot rod aircraft like the XIV or even the P-47M (though it was never designed or intended to chase v1, it's still the fastest single engine fighter of the war)

Maybe we could even see a meteor added, that be pretty sweet.

[DD_Arthur]

Interesting idea.  It was pretty cool in '46.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Not to get off topic but a Meateor has got to come right? We can't have just 1 axis jet.

Edited October 30, 2018 by AeroAce

[Talon_]

5 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

P-47M

 

As much as I'd love to see this plane, it didn't enter active service until well past the completion of our upcoming campaign

[Legioneod]

2 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

As much as I'd love to see this plane, it didn't enter active service until well past the completion of our upcoming campaign

Not entirely true, but I understand if they never add it.

Edited October 30, 2018 by Legioneod

[PainGod85]

14 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Not entirely true, but I understand if they never add it.

 

It was the fastest prop at 32k ft. Not so much at SL, that honor goes to the Tempest, I believe.

[Legioneod]

4 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

 

It was the fastest prop at 32k ft. Not so much at SL, that honor goes to the Tempest, I believe.

Agreed. I just meant fastest prop overall at 473+ mph.

[Talon_]

10 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Not entirely true, but I understand if they never add it.

 

You might be thinking of the YP-47M. Engine troubles prevented the P-47M from reaching operational status until mid-April 45. Otherwise it flew only Air Tests until then.

[Finkeren]

10 hours ago, AeroAce said:

Not to get off topic but a Meateor has got to come right? We can't have just 1 axis jet.

 

Since the Meteor and the Me 262 never met in combat, I’d say it makes perfect sense to just have one of them.

 

If we are to further expand the plane set of BoBP, I’d much prefer some more medium bombers/attack planes, or maybe the V1, that’d be a good idea (and fairly easy to do, I’d think)

[Legioneod]

11 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

You might be thinking of the YP-47M. Engine troubles prevented the P-47M from reaching operational status until mid-April 45. Otherwise it flew only Air Tests until then.

No, I was thinking of the M, they were sent to England but were grounded in march due to engine trouble. I coulda swore I read they flew operational missions until they started experiencing trouble, gonna have to do some more digging and see where I read that.

 

Also, seeing as the Bodenplatte timeline ends April 1st, it is within reason to have the P-47M added one day imo.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Legioneod

[Talon_]

3 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

 

Since the Meteor and the Me 262 never met in combat, I’d say it makes perfect sense to just have one of them.

 

If we are to further expand the plane set of BoBP, I’d much prefer some more medium bombers/attack planes, or maybe the V1, that’d be a good idea (and fairly easy to do, I’d think)

 

They never met, however the 2nd Tactical Air Force did have a squadron of Meteors in operation by March 1945 (within our campaign timeline). It was used to attack ground targets exactly the same way as the Me262 (all the 262 units in our campaign will be flying Sturmvogel on ground attack sorties after November 1944).

[Bremspropeller]

V1, Rotate...

 

Oh sorry, wrong flightsim.

 

10 hours ago, AeroAce said:

Not to get off topic but a Meateor has got to come right? We can't have just 1 axis jet.

 

Right, we need two axis jets at least!

 

How about the Ar 234? Rocks my boat just fine.

The He 162 would be cool, too. For those kind of people that love to live dangerously and on't care for adding lots of flight-time to their logs.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Bremspropeller

[Elem]

10 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

I know they did it in Il-2 1946. I tried the included intercept mission a few times. It was pretty cool. To see it done in new-Il-2 would be really cool! 

And before that it was done in EAW really well.

[EAF19_Marsh]

Oh well, 25lb boost Spits here we come! ?

[MiloMorai]

36 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

You might be thinking of the YP-47M. Engine troubles prevented the P-47M from reaching operational status until mid-April 45. Otherwise it flew only Air Tests until then.

 

So something like 1-98ata for the Me109K-4.

[PainGod85]

Just now, MiloMorai said:

 

So something like 1-98ata for the Me109K-4.

 

Not quite. The engine itself was a sound design, but during transit over the Atlantic damage occurred from salt water due to improper packaging. Quite different from the engine literally eating itself up. at 1.98 ATA.

[MiloMorai]

7 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

 

Not quite. The engine itself was a sound design, but during transit over the Atlantic damage occurred from salt water due to improper packaging. Quite different from the engine literally eating itself up. at 1.98 ATA.

 

Yes different problems but the timeline is pretty close for both.

[EAF19_Marsh]

6 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

 

Yes different problems but the timeline is pretty close for both.

 

I would rather a Mossie than a V-1: Luftwaffe already has 5 a/c in BoBp vs 3 US and 2 RAF (flyable).

[Diggun]

I think the implication here is that V1's wouldn't be a 'flyable' but more of an 'asset'. I think there could be some real gameplay value in having V1 launch sites that can be placed by mission designers. 

 

Imagine a mission on a server like Coconut Expert where the blue team have 4 V1 sites placed around the map. Left to their own devices they will each fire a V1 every 20 minutes (or something) at red targets (mission targets, airfields, or just cities). There would be great teamwork required & several mission types needed to deal with the V1 threat:

 

1) Recon. Some dashing young type in his PRU Blue Spit IX (Or Mossie....) has to go out and locate the sites so they show up on the reds map.

2) Defensive Patrols. Pairs of Tempests tooled up and looking for trouble over likely V1 target areas, ready to blast any incoming buzz bombs out of the air. 

3) Interdiction of Air Defences. A combination package of high alt P-51s & Spit IX's, and lower level Tempests will clear the skies over the newly located V1 launch site, paving the way for...

4) SEAD / Strike. Ooooh now... Carefully timed, the bomb & rocket toting P-47's are almost instantly followed into the target area by P-38s loaded for bear. They have about 5 minutes of fun over the target area, blowing every flack site they can see into next week, taking out the lighter targets and generally keeping everyone's head down until.....

5) Moonscaping. With the AAA treat minimised, and little friends keeping any Luftwaffle types distinctly busy, onimous droning ('wolololol') fills the sky as the mixed formation of B-25's, A-20b's and (hopefully...) Mossies storm in, bomb doors open, lethal cargo tumbling from their bellies to obliterate the entire launching complex in what is technically known as a 'bloody big bang',and create a hazard to farmers for decades to come. 

6). BDA. Same dashing PRU chap confirms target destroyed, and goes hunting for the next one....

 

 

Could be fun, don'tcher think??

[EAF19_Marsh]

6 minutes ago, Diggun said:

I think the implication here is that V1's wouldn't be a 'flyable' but more of an 'asset'.

 

Quite: my point was not meant to be taken literally but referred to any manufacturer of dairy produce..

 

Although....

Edited October 31, 2018 by EAF19_Marsh

[-TBC-AeroAce]

1 hour ago, Finkeren said:

 

Since the Meteor and the Me 262 never met in combat, I’d say it makes perfect sense to just have one of them.

 

If we are to further expand the plane set of BoBP, I’d much prefer some more medium bombers/attack planes, or maybe the V1, that’d be a good idea (and fairly easy to do, I’d think)

 

Honestly I don't give a monkey if they never met in combat. It would be fun, we don't have to be 100% historic all the time. And to save a reply I understand and Dev resources and ...... I'm not expecting it to happen. 

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

V1, Rotate...

 

Oh sorry, wrong flightsim.

 

 

Right, we need two axis jets at least!

 

How about the Ar 234? Rocks my boat just fine.

The He 162 would be cool, too. For those kind of people that love to live dangerously and on't care for adding lots of flight-time to their logs.

 

Lol gramma was never my strong point.

[rowdyb00t]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=32&ved=2ahUKEwiswdDjyLDeAhWp7IMKHQ5lDPEQFjAfegQIABAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.m.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGloster_Meteor&usg=AOvVaw0UAapfpETC0q8AzGb2Bld8 check this wiki out on the meteor

[Ehret]

Just now, EAF19_Marsh said:

Although....

 

This would allow for a great air-zombie like game! - Just make it available in some sort of multiplayer demo... It'd be a humanitarian act, too, because many could finally find a fitting game for themselves. Happiness and peace would ensure, shortly.

[EAF19_Marsh]

5 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

This would allow for a great air-zombie like game! - Just make it available in some sort of multiplayer demo... It'd be a humanitarian act, too, because many could finally find a fitting game for themselves. Happiness and peace would ensure, shortly.

 

[sevenless]

616 Sqd. was on the continent with Meteors, but didn´t have that much contact to the enemy.

Quote: "In the meantime, it had been decided that the Meteor F.3 would be used on operations on the Continent with 2 TAF so the squadron was transferred to 84 Group. The advance party of fifty men left on 28 January for Melsbroek (B-58) in Belgium, the new home for the Meteor. On 4 February, the first four aircraft, led by the OC (in EE225, the other pilots being Dennis Berry in EE239, F/L Mullenders in EE240, and F/O JK Rodgers in EE241), made the first trip and, upon arrival, they were painted white to avoid any confusion with the Me262. Flights were also scheduled to be flown over Allied lines at appointed times so that Allied personnel could become accustomed with the sight of the Meteor. McDowell returned to the UK a couple couple of days later. The move was slow, however, due to bad weather over the Continent for most of the month. Another event put a halt to this move as the V-1 re-appea-red over the British Isles obliging the squadron to maintain Meteors at home for this new threat. Contrary to the previous summer, little activity was recorded and only thirteen sorties were flown until 19 March when a handful of V-1 sightings were made, but none were shot down. The priority changed, therefore, and the move to the Continent accelerated and was eventually completed when of the remaining aircraft (in all seventeen) were in place on the 31st. 

 

The first operational sorties flown from Belgium took place on 3 April when F/L Mike Cooper (from Kenya) and ‘Dixie’ Dean took off at 16.50 after red flares were fired from flying control. Since that morning, the squadron had had two aircraft permanently on standby. They were vectored over Brussels where they intercepted two friendly aircraft and returned to base at 17.20. Until the 16th, the Meteors only scrambled a couple of times and each sortie was uneventful. The RAF was reluctant to use the Meteor on offensive operations over enemy territory. Danger could also come from friendly gunners who occasionally fired at the Meteors despite the white paint. By mid-April, the end of war was so close that the RAF cleared the Meteor for use over enemy held territory. Even should a Meteor fall into German hands, the consequences would be non-existent. On the 16th, led by S/L Watts, eight Meteors took off at 11.55 for an armed reconnaissance. This was the first offensive mission ever carried out by the Meteor. The formation returned to base after 45 minutes with nothing to report. At that moment, the white paint became useless and, as the recently arrived Meteors were painted in standard camouflage, the Meteors that had received the white paint were sent back to Colerne to have it removed. Until the end of the hostilities in Europe, the Meteor would be mainly engaged in ground attack operations.

 

A few moves took place; on the 13th to B-91/Kluis, the 20th to B-109/Quakenbrück, and B-156/Fassberg on 3 May. Quakenbrück and Fassberg were in Germany. The first success came on the 17th when F/L Cooper destroyed an enemy truck. By the end of April, 116 sorties were flown with good results on the ground and no Meteor lost during the offensive sorties. However, the end of the month would close on a dramatic event when two Meteors collided during an evening patrol. 

 

Having taken off at 19.20 for a routine patrol, neither of the two pilots, S/L Watts and F/Sgt B. Cartmel, would ever return. It came to light later on, via the radio control centre, that Spitfire pilots flying in the area heard Watts calling Cartmel to come closer as he was going into cloud. Shortly afterwards they saw a large explosion in the air. As April ended, a new commander arrived at the squadron, Wing Commander W.E. ‘Smokey’ Schrader DFC, a New Zealander with thirteen victories to his tally, from No. 486 (NZ) Squadron where he had been flying the Tempest." End of Quote

Listemann, Phil H. The Gloster Meteor F.I & F.III: Volume 15 (Squadrons!) (Kindle-Positionen245-249). Philedition. Kindle-Version. 

Edited October 31, 2018 by sevenless

[Feathered_IV]

I'd definitely be up for V-1s to intercept, and V-1 bases to try and destroy.

[Zappatime]

Agree, V1s and their launch sites would be a great addition to gameplay/mission building

[EAF19_Marsh]

Added to the -111 load options?

[sevenless]

Just now, EAF19_Marsh said:

Added to the -111 load options?

 

That´s a good suggestion.

 

 

[[APAF]VR_Spartan85]

V1 rockets would be a nice challenge... either wing tipping or shooting it.. 

i remember from il2-1946 if you were too close when it blew up mid air you’d get a taste of the blast   

 

introducing a terror weapon and having the need to take it down to save virtual life gives you a bit more of purpose... 

[Georgio]

V1 intercepts were great fun in earlier flight sims, I think even BoB had them if I remember rightly. Very difficult to get a hit on such a small fast moving target let alone get close enough to flip with a wing tip. The Germans countered the wing-flip tactic by putting detonator buttons on the wing tips I read somewhere. 

[Legioneod]

25 minutes ago, spartan85 said:

V1 rockets would be a nice challenge... either wing tipping or shooting it.. 

i remember from il2-1946 if you were too close when it blew up mid air you’d get a taste of the blast   

 

introducing a terror weapon and having the need to take it down to save virtual life gives you a bit more of purpose... 

I wouldn't try wing tipping here, not with the current collision model. Just a tiny love tap on the tip of your wing and the whole thing gets torn off, they really need to work on that.

[7.GShAP/Silas]

39 minutes ago, spartan85 said:

introducing a terror weapon and having the need to take it down to save virtual life gives you a bit more of purpose... 

 

Which is why the AI B-25 is such a good addition.

 

I can't imagine that V1/V2 complexes won't be represented.  Not so sure about rockets in flight though, sounds like a bit of work.

Edited October 31, 2018 by 7.GShAP/Silas

[DD_Arthur]

18 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I wouldn't try wing tipping here, not with the current collision model. Just a tiny love tap on the tip of your wing and the whole thing gets torn off, they really need to work on that.

 

Hmmm....I disagree with this. I think it's robust enough to indulge in a bit of wing tipping. 

[EAF19_Marsh]

1 minute ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Hmmm....I disagree with this. I think it's robust enough to indulge in a bit of wing tipping.  

 

if you are really good then you should not need to touch airframes; the airflow should be enough to 'tip' the V-1, but I don't think that we have - yet - that kind of detail simulated.