Jump to content
Jason_Williams

Discussion of the Battle of Normandy Announcement

Recommended Posts

On 11/27/2019 at 11:30 AM, Esel_kong said:

something just occurred to me, a lot of ocean in this map, what do you guys think if they introduced royal navy FAA (fleet air arm) with carriers? sub and ship hunting with swordfish and sea hurricanes  on escort carriers would be amazing and fun. 

 

i actually have no idea outside of the normandy invasion how much RN carriers operated in this region of the north sea. obviously this would be one sided and allied only but at least gives us some of the carrier ops we all want sooner rather than later

 

Bit of a late reply but I would absolutely love to see some RN carriers and FAA aircraft in the sim.

 

However as to the question on whether RN carriers ever operated in the area that the proposed map shows (which is the English Channel and Dover Straights rather than the North Sea) then dare say the answer is not much if anything. At least nothing comes to mind at the moment and happy to be corrected. And the map would need to expand out to cover at least the South Western Approaches or the North Sea proper at the least to provide somewhere that RN carriers operated. That said FAA aircraft did operate in the proposed map's area but rather than from carriers they operated from the various air stations onshore instead, and for 1944 that could grant you these squadrons and aircraft on the map;

 

808 Squadron. Lee On Solent 14/05/1944. Departed 04/08/1944
During this time the squadron used the Seafire L.III and Spitfire L.Vb carrying out bombardment spotting, offensive sweeps, anti-submarine patrols and escort for transport aircraft.

 

819 Squadron. Manston 20/04/1944. Departed 01/08/1944. Swingfield 08/08/1944. Departed 01/10/1944. St Croix 29/10/1944. Maldeghem 11/11/1944. Departed 14/12/1944.
During this time the squadron used the Swordfish II and Swordfish III carrying out patrols and attacks on coastal shipping.

 

848 Squadron. Manston 20/04/1944. Thorney Island 14/06/1944. Lee On Solent 28/08/1944. Departed 16/09/1944.
During this time the squadron used the Avenger I and Swordfish I carrying out anti-shipping patrols.

 

854 Squadron. Hawkinge 23/05/1944. Thorney Island 07/08/1944. Lee On Solent 27/08/1944. Departed 07/09/1944.
During this time the squadron used the Avenger II carrying out anti-shipping patrols and were also credited with somehow shooting down two V1 bombs.

 

855 Squadron. Hawkinge 26/05/1944. Thorney Island 03/08/1944. Departed 07/08/1944.
During this time the squadron used the Avenger II carrying out anti-shipping patrols and strikes.

 

885 Squadron. Lee On Solent 13/05/1944. Departed 04/08/1944.
During this time the squadron used the Seafire L.III and Seafire F.III carrying out bombardment spotting, offensive sweeps, anti-submarine patrols and escort for the invasion fleet and subsequent ship movements.

 

886 Squadron. Lee On Solent 20/05/1944. Disbanded 19/07/1944.
During this time the squadron used the Seafire L.III carrying out bombardment spotting, offensive sweeps, anti-submarine patrols and escort for bombers.

 

897 Squadron. Lee On Solent 21/05/1944. Disbanded 17/07/1944.
During this time the squadron used the Spitfire L.Vb would have been doing the same sort of tasks as 808, 885 and 886 Squadrons.

 

Data gained from The Squadrons and Units of the Fleet Air Arm through seeing what squadrons were given Normandy and English Channel for Battle Honours. There are other squadrons with those honours than listed here but they were not based anywhere in the proposed map area during 1944.

Edited by Oliver88
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

There were Martlets at D-Day ;) 

Grumman Wildcat ‚F’ of No 846 Squadron FAA with D-Day stripes

 

What squadrons?

 

Because from what I can look up there were Martlets in 846, 881 and 896 for Operation Neptune. And there were also Hellcats in 800 and 804. But these were aboard Emperor, Pursuer and Tracker in the South Western Approaches. So not quite "at D-Day" but rather involved in the wider operations. The proposed map would need to be stretched much much farther westwards to begin to think about including them.

 

Though for his desire for something blue (but somehow doubt these satisfy) there were squadrons with Avengers doing anti-shipping patrols from air bases in the South East.

Edited by Oliver88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, FeuerFliegen said:

Also, does anyone know the differences between the Fw190 A-6 and the A-5 or A-8?

8 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

It's a bit more than that, the redesigned wing for the MG151s also allowed the Mk108 installation you see on the in-game A-8. With any luck we might see the /R3 gondola

The A-6 is a slightly heavier A-5 equipped with MG 151/20 in the outer wings. Nothing more, nothing less. "Redesigned wing" is a bit over the top - they changed the outer weapon bay. Mk 103 and 108 armaments were only trialled. I expect:

  • ETC 501 rack (Bombs, Droptank)
  • Sturmjäger (additional armour)
  • Outer MG 151/20 removed
  • BR 21
  • F-3; G-3 (ground attack aircraft; fighter-bomber)

Nothing new; it's most likely the easiest plane to do.

I'm more interested in seeing how they are going to adopt the omnipresent A-8 we already got in BoBP with increased boost.

Edited by =27=Davesteu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2019 at 2:18 PM, GreenSound said:

This would be a wonderful "mini pack"

 

The E-4 was more common than the E-3 (yes - I would love the nose cannon, but if we had to choose, I'd take the E-4). 

Hurricane IIA and Spitfire Ia/bs would have seen combat with E-4. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, III/JG53Frankyboy said:

the Fw190A-5/U17 was renamed Fw190F-3

 

There was no nosecanon in any 109 Emil, E-3 had MG-FF, E-4 had MG-FF/M ( M for mineshell)

E-2[edit]

Only very limited numbers of the E-2 variant were built, for which the V20 prototype served as basis. It was armed with two wing mounted, and one engine mounted Motorkanone MG FF cannon, which gave considerable trouble in service, as well as two synchronized MG 17s cowl machine guns. In August 1940, II./JG 27 was operating this type.[17][18]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2019 at 7:11 AM, JtD said:

 

First, air war always is and was about bombers. There's no point for any side to deploy fighters just so they can go up and shoot at other fighters. Recon aircraft can also be relevant, but fighters are just tools to achieve something that counts - i.e. bombers dropping their load or not.

 

You couldn't be more wrong! I would suggest you read up on the evolution of the use of aircraft in combat. There are great documentaries on the subject as well :coffee:

 

This is how it started - Initially, balloons were used for reconnaissance. Then aircraft took up the role of troop movement  monitoring (scout planes). Eventually, these scout planes were armed and dispatched to shoot down other scouting (thus the pursuit aircraft was born). So if you were wondering, the "P" in P-40, P-39, P-47, P-51 etc... stand for "Pursuit".

 

Using aircraft as bombers did come first - but contrary to what AI in this game would led you to believe is that bombers needed fighter cover to be effective (in daylight anyway). There is a reason why the USAAF came up with the 25 mission max for bomber crews.

 

Quote

In 1942, during the first three months of America’s combat flights over Europe the average bomber crew was expected to complete 8-12 missions before being shot down or disabled. This in mind, the US Army Air Force decided that 25 missions while serving in a heavy bomber of the 8th Army Air Force would constitute a “completed tour of duty” because of the “physical and mental strain on the crew.” While the 25 Mission edict was a tall order when it was made, it was a number crews could believe in, and provided some hope of a light at the end of the tunnel, particularly necessary with the grim statistics bomber crews faced early-on, before long-range fighter escorts significantly improved mission survivability when they arrived later on in the course of the conflict.

http://warbirdsnews.com/warbird-articles/wwii-b-24-liberator-hot-stuff-setting-record-straight.html

Edited by JG7_X-Man
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@III/JG53Frankyboy I agree that it is not material, given how few were built.  Add an E3 or E4 and the war in the west would be well covered.

 

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

E2 is a myth that doesn't seem to want to die, lol.

 

And up until sept 1940, the E1 was still the most common 109 in the battle of Britain, but hey ho.

 

Edited by DD_fruitbat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 

You couldn't be more wrong! I would suggest you read up on the evolution of the use of aircraft in combat. There are great documentaries on the subject as well :coffee:

 

 

Oh dear. I think if you look at JtD's posting history you will find that he has a very good grasp of the evolution of aircraft in combat. Anyway, your own post illustrates his point: bombers need escorts because otherwise they will probably be shot down by fighters. Air superiority is the fighter's main job, but it is just a means to an end, which is the identification of and delivery of ordnance on enemy targets and the prevention of same on your own.

 

BTW, bombers in this game also get shot down if detected when unescorted, either in MP or SP.  A few fighters getting shot down in the attempt does not change that fact. 

Edited by unreasonable
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

Using aircraft as bombers did come first - but contrary to what AI in this game would led you to believe is that bombers needed fighter cover to be effective (in daylight anyway).


This just reinforces the point you’re trying to argue against. The fighters went up to escort the bombers or to shoot them down. What they did was based on what the bombers were doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Battle of Normandy...very nice!

 

I'm in on one condition...please continue to work on the still poor enemy AI so us SP's can have a decent dogfight ; )

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2019 at 7:18 AM, Jason_Williams said:

Everyone,

 

Thank you again to all who have ordered BON or the new Hurri and Yaks already! We're outpacing BOBP Pre-Orders so please, please, please keep up the support this Holiday Season! My goal every year is to show 1C that combat sims still have a place in this world and can be profitable as we bring more and more people into the fold. Keep pouring it on guys and gals!! 

 

Jason 

 

That's great to hear. My top wish would be the PTO for sure, but I'll buy whatever new IL2 expansion we get to support the series and company. I'd rather have a new theatre of operations I care a bit less about that have nothing new at all and see IL2 stop.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read through a lot of the comments since I last posted and was a little confused...
My understanding is the Spitfire Mk XIV was equipped with a Griffon engine...not a Merlin (which a lot of people are saying it is?)...I mean if they said they are going back all the way to 42' as a start date early Griffon engines had poor high altitude performance due to them only having a single stage supercharger but from what I could find by the time the XIV was rolling off the production lines it was fitted with AND only the Griffon 65 engine which was a slightly modded version of the Griffon 61 that being the big boy 2 stage supercharged Griffon engine...People say they don't see what the Mk XIV brings to the table but due to the basic Mk IX being a little 'UFOy' in game already the XIV with is 2,050 hp is no laughing matter compared to the 1,710 hp of the Merlin 70 engine (and remember the Merlin 70 is a separate modification to give the Mk IX a better engine in game...if you don't take it you have even less horsepower)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I pre-ordered all the things, all the things.  Been supporting this series since the original IL-2 Beta almost 20 years ago...  This looks very exciting.  I would really like to see (eventually) the ability to:

 

1) Pilot the C-47 as a paratrooper/cargo transport, as well as a tug... which brings me to the next wish list...

2) Add flyable Airspeed Horsa glider (Brits) (with a variable load... and I have some pictures from IWM in London from the inside of cockpit...) and/or

3) Add flyable Waco CG-4 glider (Yankees) (with variable load)...

 

IL-2 fans... always wanting more... (say it with a Homer Simpson voice...)

 

And yes, I'll never stop asking for the ability to walk around and shoot some guns... Normandy landings maybe the perfect environment for that... your map work is way too beautiful to allow that feature eventually...  ;) :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ju-87 D-5 must will come to life at least as a collector plane for BOPB and BON, we, stuka pilots,  lovers of crazy dives, having huge appreciation for our parachutes and cause heart attacks to mechanics counting bullet holes we have feelings too 😥

 

junkers-ju-87d-5-stuka-1-24-trumpeter-02424.jpg

Edited by andres43

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why for these westernfront battles ?

there were no Stuka sorties in the west anymore at those times - suicidal !

Perhaps at night , dont know , but than not divebombing. Guess why the most Ju87s had no divebrakes anymore late in the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is my A-Wing?!

 

All of this ‘X-Wing’ invented nonsense and ‘Tie-In’ won teh war. Honestly, is this a sim or a game?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the devs, since you seem hellbent on not giving us the Pacific, can you give us the British Wildcats, Hellcats, and Corsairs that were in operation during that time period? Maybe even carrier operations?

 

Maybe you can develop some stuff there that can be reused for the Pacific...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

You couldn't be more wrong! I would suggest you read up on the evolution of the use of aircraft in combat. There are great documentaries on the subject as well 

 

Actually, you are wrong in this: fighter are a necessity rather than a primary aspect. The point of the air arm is direct or indirect support of war aims. Fighters exist only to counter other aircraft and then - additionally - because other fighter exist.

 

That fighters are readily turned into fighter-bombers, recce or SEAD aircraft is indicative of this point. A fighter just playing the role of a fighter is fairly pointless unless it is opposing the enemy efforts (bombing, recce etc).

 

Air-land or air-sea is the point, fighters then make or break that ability. If the enemy has no fighters, you focus on your other roles. When they do, you need fighter. Fighters are not an end in themselves.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So as cool as warbirds are, I’m curious and hope Tank crew is a much bigger aspect to il2 Normandy.  As the Breakout is key and it was the ground guys that did the heavy lifting.  Plus tank crew is just amazing in vr.

 

i want to drive my Sherman from the shores of Normandy to the streets of Berlin.....  I think it will happen

Edited by MercCrom175
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2019 at 1:31 PM, =621=Samikatz said:

It's a bit more than that, the redesigned wing for the MG151s also allowed the Mk108 installation you see on the in-game A-8. With any luck we might see the /R3 gondola

 

Can you not use the A-8 wing for the A-6?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, III/JG53Frankyboy said:

the Fw190A-5/U17 was renamed Fw190F-3

 

But it had the A-6 wings.

4 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Can you not use the A-8 wing for the A-6?

 

You can - with two exceptions:

 

1) The A-8's pitot tube is on the strboard wing-tip, while it's situated at the mid-wing on the A-6.

2) The MK108 30mm gun installation on the A-8 (which wasn't available in service on the A-6) would require a bulge in the rear mid wing section (somewhat similar to the bulges on the Spit).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys seem to misunderstand what I mean by pre and post invasion. Will be the same map, just no ALGs. Please don't make things up.

 

Jason

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that the developers will manage the Bocage close to the reality. Will not be easy.

Bocage_country_at_Cotentin_Peninsula1-1024x745.jpg

bocage_normand-1.jpg

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, III/JG53Frankyboy said:

why for these westernfront battles ?

there were no Stuka sorties in the west anymore at those times - suicidal !

Perhaps at night , dont know , but than not divebombing. Guess why the most Ju87s had no divebrakes anymore late in the war.

If is possible to fly the Ju 87 D3 at BOBP , why this plane will be deleted at BON  if the events were earlier? I think that the conversion the running D3 to D5 is not a job as complicated as making a plane from zero. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, III/JG53Frankyboy said:

why for these westernfront battles ?

there were no Stuka sorties in the west anymore at those times - suicidal !

Perhaps at night , dont know , but than not divebombing. Guess why the most Ju87s had no divebrakes anymore late in the war.

 

There absolutely were Ju 87s flying night sorties in the West all the way up to the war's end. In fact, you can fly in such a unit in career mode.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 76IAP-Black said:

@Jason, what are ALG's? 

 

temporary advanced airfields

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well with the current map proposal (which I realized could change), on the post-invasion version, we can get from D-Day plus 1 to the end of July, past that and we're south off the map.

The ALG's were operational a few days into June (7th - 10th of June or so I think on average) so that's 7 weeks’ish worth of use for those.

 

To be fair, given the operational tempo we can fit a whole lot of missions in that time frame.

Combine it with the pre-invasion version and that's a whole lot of mission potential.

 

Laying some rectangles out on a map, I get the issue they Dev's are facing...lose Calais to snip Paris off the map, or lose real estate south of Caen to include Calais and also snip Paris out of the map. 

Calais is vital to pre-invasion ops...with this map we get a smart compromise I think.

The Allies were bogged down for a bit  until the St. Lo break out...again there's a lot of mission potential there.

 

I'm more interested in pre-invasion ground pounding, train hunting, anti-shipping etc anyway to be honest.

 

(edit: I’m talking 9th Air Force of course)

Edited by Gambit21
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remembering days past in IL-2...  Cross Channel Map.  “They” said it could be done......

 

 

1059DE97-BB9B-4350-9089-0E23417028FC.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, I'm having a hard time getting motivated to play Bodenplatte. Mainly because the ETO without heavy bombers is just . . . not the ETO.

Trying to reorient the way I approach the game . . . but still haven't found myself starting it up for a nightly sortie the way I did with the Eastern Front versions.

Just feels like something is missing.

Because it is.
 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

I'm more interested in pre-invasion ground pounding, train hunting, anti-shipping etc anyway to be honest.

 

(edit: I’m talking 9th Air Force Mosquito Ops of course)

 

Fixed that for you...:drinks:

 

1354949096_BombingofFrancebeforeD-Day.jpg.e023e3f2b9ed2f6cdfd6c41ff69797a2.jpg

Holland, James. Normandy '44 . Grove Atlantic. Kindle Edition. 

 

Approximate location of Mosquito FB Mk VI bases if the map doesn't change. Sculthorpe, Hunsdon, Castle Camps, Bradwell Bay are off the map.

294289743_BoNMosquitoapproxbases.thumb.jpg.3444fd2fe383759cacc9f4902e400bfa.jpg

Edited by busdriver
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t forget Operation Crossbow either..... 

12 minutes ago, Five_By_Five said:

Meh, I'm having a hard time getting motivated to play Bodenplatte. Mainly because the ETO without heavy bombers is just . . . not the ETO.

Trying to reorient the way I approach the game . . . but still haven't found myself starting it up for a nightly sortie the way I did with the Eastern Front versions.

Just feels like something is missing.

Because it is.
 


A lot of the assets we need for livening up BOBP are identified as being in the BON.  The “proposed” map might come up a bit short atm, but it’s not final.  As for heavy bomber activity, as I recall, it was quite a while (as in years) after the IL-2 Normandy map was released before we had either a B-17, B-24 or Lancaster.  Don’t give up to soon.  BOBP covers a 1 Sep 44 - 15 Apr 45 timeframe.....that’s a LOT of air activity.  Granted, most of it is 9th AF/2TAF activity, but still...... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...