Jump to content
SCG_Faerber

IL-2: PTO - The first pack.

Recommended Posts

THIS IS A REPOST OF A POST I MADE ON THE PACIFIC SUGGESTIONS THREAD, HOWEVER THAT SECTION IS APPARENTLY LOCKED SO NOBODY CAN COMMENT WHICH IS WHY I PASTED IT HERE.

Hello, first of all I’d like to apologize in advance for my writing, I’m not a native speaker so things might appear “odd” in the rest of this post 😁

 

This is a suggestion for what could be in the future the first expansion for IL-2 GBS into the Pacific Theater and I bring this with a few things in mind apart of personal preference.
 

The theater in question would be the New Guinea campaign starting in early April ‘42.

It could cover from the taking of Lae by Japanese forces and the subsequent Operation Mo to take Port Moresby from the Allies to beyond, possibly until November ‘42.

 

Now, why New Guinea? Well, many reasons, I will enumerate 7 of them below:

 

  1. New Guinea was a major part for the pacific theater and had profound impact on the course of the war
  2. It was the area in which the famous “Tainan Air Group” operated, from the airfield of Lae, these men, most notably Hiroyoshi Nishizawa, Saburo Sakai and Toshio Ota, had a remarkable tour of duty and together had more than 150 air kills by the end of the conflict.
  3. It was an intense sector of operations with daily fights that spread through weeks and daily ground attacks performed by heavy, medium and light aircraft.
  4. Diversified nature of the bombing missions carried out specially by the allies. From high altitude bombings with B-17s to low altitude airfield raids with B-25s and B-26s.
  5. No immediate necessity of carriers to be involved. Most of these fights were conducted from ground installations for both the Japanese and the Allied nations. Such as Lae for the Japanese and Moresby for the allies (with many more options, even perhaps an air spawn far south to indicate bombers from the Australian mainland).
  6. A few aircrafts such as the P40 and the P39 are already present in-game and would only need minor changes to be applied to the PTO.
  7. Inclusion of interesting nations for the allied side such as Dutch and Australian markings.

and extra:

       8. FLOATPLANES

 

As you can see, New Guinea is a fresh theater with a fresh feel and many possibilities but without the much larger work needed for a possible Midway, no need for carrier operations and complex naval AI or whatever else needs to be done on that front to make it authentic. It would be a perfect kick off for the period and way less tiresome.

 

For the maps I have 2 suggestions: one which is already fairly large but would be the minimum necessary for a authentic campaign, and the second which is most likely the bigger one yet on the series, but seeing as most of the map is an huge ocean I assume it could prove to be at the most as hard as Bodenplatte. 

 

Spoiler

874119804_Moresby1.png.18a29753931df8aba82b5cdf2c760cfa.png 

"Smaller" map, contain the area where most of the action raged on, with Rabaul just outside the map.

 

Spoiler

124998799_moresby2.png.870e15376b7c342229d25bbdb749fecf.png

Bigger map with Rabaul and the entire Island of New Britain. (Maybe another map could be made, one that would also cover the solomon islands but... That's too much isn't it?)




 

The aircraft list is something that is of course tied in to historical accuracy so this is just a personal preference since I’m sure the devs and community members will have better ideas.



 

         

Spoiler

 

  Japan                                                                 v                                                       Allies

 

  F1M (possibly collector)                                                                                     PBY Catalina

    A5M2                                                                                                                       P-40

    A6M2                                                                                                               Brewster Buffalo

    A6M3 mod32                                                                                                         P-39

    G4M                                                                                                                        P-400

    H6K                                                                                                                          B-26

    & others…                                                                                                               P-36

                                                                                                                                     P38

 

 

 

 

Ps: Sorry about the bold letters, I couldn't deactivate them for some reason.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

New Guinea 1942/43 is the most diverse and versatile Asiatic-Pacific Theatre scenario - simply the best option. It's the perfect stepping stone.

 

I. Papua & eastern New Guinea August 1942 - Summer 1943 campaign

Tactical: Kokoda Track campaign  - Battle of Milne Bay - Battle of Buna–Gona - Battle of Wau - Battle of the Bismarck Sea - Salamaua–Lae campaign

Strategic: Bombing of Rabaul

 

  • A6M3 Mod. 32 incl. early Mod. 22 modification
  • Ki-43-I Otsu incl. Hei modification
  • G4M1 Mod. 11 or Ki-48-I
  • D3A2 Mod. 22
  • Ki-61-I Kou (Otsu & Hei could be modifications) - Premium

---------------vs.------------------

  • P-38F-5
  • P-39D-1 incl. D-2 and maybe P-400 modification
  • B-25C-NA
    • Rarer alternative: B-26-MA
  • Beaufighter Mk. I
  • P-40K-5 - Premium
    • Limiting alternative: P-40M, P-40N or P-47D

 

Reusable existing aircraft:
P-40E-1, B-25D (late block) if flyable by then

Reusable "Papua & New Guinea 1942/43" aircraft:
P-39D-1 with D-2/P-400 modification (Eastern Front - VVS), P-40K-5 (Eastern Front - VVS), B-25C (Western & Eastern Front - RAF & VVS)

 

117720228_PNG-Air-war-1942-43(2).thumb.png.a067bfc8a3b05c887435c267cecc0ef4.png

 

 

 

II.  Battle of the Coral Sea

 

A6M2 Mod. 21*

B5N2

D3A1 Mod. 11*
Carriers: Shokaku, Zuikaku, Shoho

---------------vs.------------------

F4F-3

TBD-1

SBD-3*

Carriers: Yorktown, Lexington

 

Aircraft marked with an asterisk can also be used in the Papua & New Guinea 1942/43 campaign and extend its timeframe to spring 1942.

Edited by =27=Davesteu
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Guinea always made the most sense to me as a first step into the PTO as well...P-38, P-39, P-40, B-25 will be available in some form right off the bat...obviously not an easy task whatsoever- but with some maps, the Ki-43, A6M, Ki-61 and a twin bomber or 2 and you're cooking with gas without the technical delays in development of the carrier system.

 

Love everything we have so far- and don't want to at all seem disparaging or ungrateful in the least bit- just thinking out loud...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The B-25 could be modded with and without cheek-guns and it may be modded into a gunship - some aircraft actually were modified from B-25C airframes.

That certainly would be cool beyond scale!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No carriers?  What a huge bore-fest:(

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2019 at 12:53 PM, DD_Arthur said:

No carriers?  What a huge bore-fest:(

 

We need carriers, that’s how Guadalcanal began after all. :) Also the Battle of Santa Cruz (also Solomons map thank you very much)

 

The most important and in reality the decisive battles were fought from land however. Both sides tucked their precious carriers out of harms way for quite a number of months while the most pivotal events took place in the Solomons.

 

Carrier battles are interesting and fun to simulate (which less face it counts for a lot) but in reality carriers in WWII existed to counter other carriers, they didn’t win, lose, or change the direction of the war at Midway, at Santa Cruz or the Philippine Sea. The war was won and lost over land and with land-based aircraft and trust me those air battles are far from boring.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

We need carriers, that’s how Guadalcanal began after all. :) Also the Battle of Santa Cruz (also Solomons map thank you very much)

 

Excellent!  So we agree; we need carriers.  Very much looking forward to flying Wildcats, Dauntless, Zeros, etc. in VR. 

At the end of the day , I must admit I don't mind too much if I'm flying from a carrier off Midway, Salerno or Inchon.  Just...carriers....:cool:.

 

2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

The most important and in reality the decisive battles were fought from land however. 

 

 in reality carriers in WWII existed to counter other carriers, they didn’t win, lose, or change the direction of the war at Midway, at Santa Cruz or the Philippine Sea. The war was won and lost over land and with land-based aircraft

   

Sorry but from a historical and strategic aspect this is simply incorrect. 

The only way to defeat the Japanese was to occupy Tokyo.   There was only one way to do that and Nimitz took it.  Everything else was a side show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope - wrong. VERY wrong.

The military was defeated in the Solomons and elsewhere, that was the beginning of the downward spiral that Japan wouldn’t recover from.

 

Occupying the home islands was beating the dead horse.

I can recommend a few books if you need.

 

The home islands stuff is interesting, but Japan was in its knees militarily by then.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

The military was defeated in the Solomons and elsewhere, that was the beginning of the downward spiral that Japan wouldn’t recover from.

 

Occupying the home islands was beating the dead horse.

 

The home islands stuff is interesting, but Japan was in its knees militarily by then.

 

Occupying the home islands is all that matters.  The loss of all those other places was irrelevant.   The only land based planes that had a hand in the surrender of Japan were the B29's flying from bases captured by Nimitz's island hopping force.Japan surrendered because the home islands were about to suffer a calamity.  A calamity delivered under a massive carrier based aerial umbrella.  

1.jpg

 

There were four million undefeated troops on the home islands in August 1945.  All these men would have fought.  They had to be ordered to surrender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that the success of the US submarine fleet in cutting off strategic supplies to the home islands had a great deal to do with Japan's surrender. As did the entry of the Soviet Union into the war. Not that it matters as far as IL-2 GB is concerned, since alternate history scenarios aren't being modelled. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Occupying the home islands is all that matters.  The loss of all those other places was irrelevant.   The only land based planes that had a hand in the surrender of Japan were the B29's flying from bases captured by Nimitz's island hopping force.Japan surrendered because the home islands were about to suffer a calamity.  A calamity delivered under a massive carrier based aerial umbrella.  

1.jpg

 

There were four million undefeated troops on the home islands in August 1945.  All these men would have fought.  They had to be ordered to surrender.

 

 

Yes!

 

You're conflating 2 issues however.

You're "sorry this is incorrect" was an attempt to refute my statement about decisive battles, however how you're talking about ultimate, final, last breath surrender.

2 different things and not something I was addressing.

 

I should have used slightly different language myself and said "pivotal battle" 

 

Japan was sent into a backwards slide that it would never recover from after the Battle for Guadalcanal. The end...

 They were still fighting as the Americans pushed up the slot, but in retreat/decline/defensive and not able project significant military power.

They were still fighting in New Guinea  but still in decline. They would fight in the Philippine sea, but in further decline - almost utterly defensive.

 

So back to my statement about Guadalcanal and war "won and lost" from land bases. As I've typed a dozen times or more already, both sides entered the battle for Guadalcanal in a state of force parity, they exited the 6 month battle with Japan in a spiral. That's what I was addressing. Yes there were battles to come, but Guadalcanal broke Japan's back so to speak.

Some semblance of the Japanese military existed until very late in the war, but that's different than having the ability to project power etc.

 

Just as Germany was effectively defeated military before Allies marched into or even attacked Berlin.

 

The certainty of defensive fighting on the home isles was another ball of wax, and had nothing to do with Japanese ability to project military power.

Troops aside, the 'bushido' culture would have meant a blood bath, and forget troops, civilians, children would all have been involved...that along with sphere of influence concerns lead to the bomb...and again, totally different conversation. Japan was military on it's knees by then, regardless of the number of troops trapped on the home islands.

Edited by Gambit21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

The only way to defeat the Japanese was to occupy Tokyo.   There was only one way to do that and Nimitz took it.  Everything else was a side show.

Since Japan surrendered unconditionally before Tokyo was occupied, I don't think this is true. Also, the USSR could have taken Tokyo without going through the central Pacific battles. But, of course, they were not at war with Japan until 1945.

 

I love the idea of fleet capital ships in BoX, but I'd rather have a focused land campaign. It was land based air that spent most of the time in combat, even late in the war. F4Us were flying off Peliliu within days of the invasion, at times they would drop ordinance within minutes of lifting off the runway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Carrier battles are interesting and fun to simulate (which less face it counts for a lot) but in reality carriers in WWII existed to counter other carriers, they didn’t win, lose, or change the direction of the war at Midway, at Santa Cruz or the Philippine Sea. The war was won and lost over land and with land-based aircraft and trust me those air battles are far from boring.

 

This is a statement that I can not agree with. I'm actually rather surprised to see you write this. To say that carriers did not change the direction of the war, at Midway stuns me, frankly. Midway was a carrier battle. Without the aircraft carriers, the battle could not have occurred. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your meaning, here. And New Guinea might have fallen to the Japanese had the U.S. Navy not turned them back at the Coral Sea. 

The carriers were instrumental in capturing the Marianas Island. A piece of property that was considered so important to the Japanese, that when they fell to U.S. forces, it forced the resignation of Hideki Tojo and his cabinet. 

Along with the U.S. Navy's submarine fleet, the carrier air groups annihilated Japan's navy and merchant fleet and made it nearly impossible for Japan to reinforce or resupply her armies on those far flung Pacific battlefields. The U.S. Navy fighters pilots, in battles such as the Mariana Turkey Shoot, destroyed Japan's naval air force. As an island nation, loss of control of the sea lanes meant that Japan could barely feed it's population, let alone continue to fight the war. The land based actions that occurred, could not have happened if U.S. task forces had not secured the seas around those islands. 

The carriers were absolutely vital to winning the war in the Pacific. It could not have been won without them.

Edited by Poochnboo
spelling
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

Japan surrendered because the home islands were about to suffer a calamity.  A calamity delivered under a massive carrier based aerial umbrella.

Japan surrendered because Soviet Union rolled Japanese forces in Manchuria like a carpet, creating a threat to Hokkaido and because U.S. eventually agreed to preserve Imperial rule, though reduced to a symbolic as we know. It's clear from the existing records of events that happened during Cabinet meetings in August 1945, what influenced decisions and what did not. 

 

3 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Yes there were battles to come, but Guadalcanal broke Japan's back so to speak.

It's really hard to support such statement. By breaking someone's back one usually refers to a state where to opponent is unable to wage a war or continue. Japan's ability to conduct offensive operations was effectively shut down not because of Guadalcanal, Midway or anything else but a collective loss of aircraft, crews and aircraft carriers. Had Japan won Midway battle, Kido Butai would simply destroy any naval operation and attempt of landing on Guadalcanal.

Instead loss of four aircraft carriers with significant portion of crew and decent amount of pilots evened to carrier vs carrier abilities of both powers. Then loss of some 525 aircraft (154 failing to return to base, 371 damaged) by 25th Air Flotilla over New Guinea and Guadalcanal from August to November with some of the best crews serving in those land based units created a gap impossible to fill. On top of that Japan lost furhter 90+ aircraft with majority of crews during Santa Cruz battle. 

All this had a collective impact on Imperial Japanese Navy ability to continue the war in Southern and South Western Pacific Area, leading to a formal request of IJN to IJA, to brign their aircraft. But I dont think a single event or campaign should be seen as turning point in a modern war of attrition. 

 

   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Poochnboo said:

This is a statement that I can not agree with. I'm actually rather surprised to see you write this. To say that carriers did not change the direction of the war, at Midway stuns me, frankly. Midway was a carrier battle. Without the aircraft carriers, the battle could not have occurred. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your meaning, here. And New Guinea might have fallen to the Japanese had the U.S. Navy not turned them back at the Coral Sea. 

The carriers were instrumental in capturing the Marianas Island. A piece of property that was considered so important to the Japanese, that when they fell to U.S. forces, it forced the resignation of Hideki Tojo and his cabinet. 

Along with the U.S. Navy's submarine fleet, the carrier air groups annihilated Japan's navy and merchant fleet and made it nearly impossible for Japan to reinforce or resupply her armies on those far flung Pacific battlefields. The U.S. Navy fighters pilots, in battles such as the Mariana Turkey Shoot, destroyed Japan's naval air force. As an island nation, loss of control of the sea lanes meant that Japan could barely feed it's population, let alone continue to fight the war. The land based actions that occurred, could not have happened if U.S. task forces had not secured the seas around those islands. 

The carriers were absolutely vital to winning the war in the Pacific. It could not have been won without them.

 

You make some great points pooch.

 

The shift happened/Japanese spiral started while carriers for both sides were stashed out of harms’ way however. Most of the air to air fighting, most of the fighting period occurred sans carriers, and this includes a large portion of the destruction  of Japans’ naval Air Force.

 

Still some good points.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2019 at 7:32 PM, DD_Arthur said:

Occupying the home islands is all that matters.  The loss of all those other places was irrelevant. 

Arthur, think of what a really rediculous statement this is, really. Those other places were irrelevant? Arthur, how could the landings in Japan have occurred place if all of those "irrelevant" islands had not been taken from the Japanese. How could an invasion of Japan have even been considered if the Allies in the Pacific were still concerned with defending Hawaii and Australia from the advancing Japanese. They were stopped at Guadalcanal. And then the long, bloody, haul northward began. It couldn't have happened without those "irrelevan"t battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here you go Arthur.

Everyone needs to read this one.

 

Guadalcanal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Poochnboo said:

Arthur, think of what a really rediculous statement this is, really. Those other places were irrelevant? 

 

Hi Pooch:salute:.

 

My statement is 

 

a) a simple statement of fact.  Tojo didn't offer to fall on his sword because they lost in New Guinea.  His government collapsed when they lost the Battle of the Philippine Sea.

 

b) a rebuttal of the whole basis of this thread;  namely, we go to war in the pacific without carriers

 

On 7/4/2019 at 5:11 AM, SCG_Faerber said:

As you can see, New Guinea is a fresh theater with a fresh feel and many possibilities but without the much larger work needed for a possible Midway, no need for carrier operations and complex naval AI or whatever else needs to be done on that front to make it authentic. It would be a perfect kick off for the period and way less tiresome.

 

and ending up flying a freakin' Brewster Buffalo over Milne Bay:(

 

Agree with you here completely.

 

On 7/24/2019 at 5:18 AM, Poochnboo said:

This is a statement that I can not agree with. I'm actually rather surprised to see you write this. To say that carriers did not change the direction of the war, at Midway stuns me, frankly. Midway was a carrier battle. Without the aircraft carriers, the battle could not have occurred. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your meaning, here. And New Guinea might have fallen to the Japanese had the U.S. Navy not turned them back at the Coral Sea. 

The carriers were instrumental in capturing the Marianas Island. A piece of property that was considered so important to the Japanese, that when they fell to U.S. forces, it forced the resignation of Hideki Tojo and his cabinet. 

Along with the U.S. Navy's submarine fleet, the carrier air groups annihilated Japan's navy and merchant fleet and made it nearly impossible for Japan to reinforce or resupply her armies on those far flung Pacific battlefields. The U.S. Navy fighters pilots, in battles such as the Mariana Turkey Shoot, destroyed Japan's naval air force. As an island nation, loss of control of the sea lanes meant that Japan could barely feed it's population, let alone continue to fight the war. The land based actions that occurred, could not have happened if U.S. task forces had not secured the seas around those islands. 

The carriers were absolutely vital to winning the war in the Pacific. It could not have been won without them.

 

and re-reading this I see we agree on how important these events were viewed in Tokyo. 

 

The fact is,  from the US point of view the whole Pacific campaign was dictated by the rivalry between the US Army and the US Navy and the way the Roosevelt administration dealt with these rivalries in the light of US public opinion,  the Press and what friends in Congress General MacArthur and Admiral King could call upon.

 

The 'twin track' compromise that was reached is another tribute to the enormous talent for supply,  logistics and sheer production capacity the US was able to employ in WW2.

In strategic terms eventually this compromise was able to place the B29 weapon system on Tinian,  throttle communications between the Japanese home islands and the back of beyond where lots of the Japanese army had been deployed and allow a bloodbath in the Philippines and a score of other pointless places to satisfy the meglomania of MacArthur.

 

c) in a nutshell;  the Pacific war is the story of five major carrier engagements. 

 

If the GBS series is to venture into the pacific there can be only one way to go and thats with the Grey Funnel Line.

 

:biggrin:     

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

c) in a nutshell;  the Pacific war is the story of five major carrier engagements. 

 

100% incorrect.

You we’re doing OK more or less (still being a bit selective) before you got to that little gem.

 

Feel free to utilize the link above.

 

However we do need carriers. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

100% incorrect.

 

Well......:)

 

If theres a technical limit to the size of maps then carrier battles might be all that realistically can be done for the pacific. 

 

Guadalcanal would really need a map some four hundred by three hundred miles and even then you would not get Rabaul or possibly the battle of the Eastern Solomons or Santa Cruz islands on it. 

 

Even though four-fifths of this map would be ocean thats still one enormous map to load up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And of course,  you'll need a B 17:o:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, hate to spoil your fun (it is an interesting discussion after all), but shall we not continue discussing IL-2 BoNG here?

 

B-25 Gunship and Strafer

A-20 Strafer

 

<= I'd like to see those.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2019 at 5:28 PM, DD_Arthur said:

 

Well......:)

 

If theres a technical limit to the size of maps then carrier battles might be all that realistically can be done for the pacific. 

 

Guadalcanal would really need a map some four hundred by three hundred miles and even then you would not get Rabaul or possibly the battle of the Eastern Solomons or Santa Cruz islands on it. 

 

Even though four-fifths of this map would be ocean thats still one enormous map to load up.

 

Well as before, scaled down distances between islands are the way to go. :)

 

15 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Hey guys, hate to spoil your fun (it is an interesting discussion after all), but shall we not continue discussing IL-2 BoNG here?

 

B-25 Gunship and Strafer

A-20 Strafer

 

<= I'd like to see those.

 

BoNG - let's call it the 2nd best option. :P

 

Don't forget the Beaufighter. :)

It's up there with the two you mentioned as far as strafers go.

  • Like 1

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

×
×
  • Create New...