PDA

View Full Version : Dunkirk Mission



Gromit
Jan-15-2014, 11:19
Could someone please explain why there are Me109E3b's on the Dunkirk map?

And if service dates are irrelevant when can I have a Hurricane iic :)

Kling
Jan-15-2014, 12:04
And why Dunkirk is on an atumn map when in took place in spring of 1940 ;)

Gromit
Jan-15-2014, 14:43
:doh:

Zisi
Jan-17-2014, 15:26
Could someone please explain why anyone should care? Maybe the French didn't run away as quickly in this version of events? It's not important.

SamJoDo
Jan-17-2014, 16:21
Can someone explain to me..

..why its a 'penny for your thought's but you have to 'put your two cents in'?

ATAG_Colander
Jan-17-2014, 16:25
Can someone explain to me..

..why its a 'penny for your thought's but you have to 'put your two cents in'?

Supply and demand :D

Gromit
Jan-20-2014, 09:15
Could someone please explain why anyone should care? Maybe the French didn't run away as quickly in this version of events? It's not important.

Well if your playing a historically based mission having an aircraft available which was not in service at that time is a bit odd, like having the Typhoon during the BoB, the Blues have plenty of bombers to choose from without inserting an incorrect airframe into the mission, especially one that drops it's bombs then goes dogfighting with a boosted engine when it's only two pitch red planes available in France.

If it's been put in for a logical reason fair enough, I'm just asking why, at present trying to defend targets against attack from these aircraft is a waste of time as you just end up dogfighting with them after they have bombed. there is no red equivalent and as the aircraft was not used in the timeframe of the mission then surely it's not realistic to have them available?

The mission is great, but the constant use of these aircraft when there were Stukas etc to do the job spoils the whole concept.

ATAG_Lolsav
Jan-20-2014, 10:21
the aircraft was not used in the timeframe of the mission then surely it's not realistic to have them available?

The mission is great, but the constant use of these aircraft when there were Stukas etc to do the job spoils the whole concept.

I can understand the arguments there Gromit. While i dont want to pick "sides", i do need to ask: Were there Spits IA or even Spits I available on France, at same time frame?

ATAG_Snapper
Jan-20-2014, 10:41
I can understand the arguments there Gromit. While i dont want to pick "sides", i do need to ask: Were there Spits IA or even Spits I available on France, at same time frame?

Nope, not in France! In fact, the Red side is getting a huge break in having Spitfire 1a 100 octanes available at Ramsgate and Lympne airfields right on the coast nearest to Dunkirk. AFAIK the only Spits with CSP that operated over Dunkirk during the evacuation was 54 Squadron flying out of Hornchurch -- twice the distance!

I don't know if France had any CSP (Rotol) Hurricanes during the evacuation.

But regardless of plane sets or seasons, this is a great mission and fun to fly. :thumbsup:

LuseKofte
Jan-20-2014, 19:10
I agree the historical aspect does not show in the way we play it. And I think mission makers try very hard to make missions that force people to play in them to cooperate.
What is the sense in purly historican missions when the missions themselves is not played out by us users in a historical way.

Anyway the missions are in general very good

9./JG52 Ziegler
Jan-21-2014, 08:20
Nope, not in France! In fact, the Red side is getting a huge break in having Spitfire 1a 100 octanes available at Ramsgate and Lympne airfields right on the coast nearest to Dunkirk. AFAIK the only Spits with CSP that operated over Dunkirk during the evacuation was 54 Squadron flying out of Hornchurch -- twice the distance!

I don't know if France had any CSP (Rotol) Hurricanes during the evacuation.

But regardless of plane sets or seasons, this is a great mission and fun to fly. :thumbsup:

Bingo +1

LuseKofte
Jan-21-2014, 09:49
I think there was a majority ready in the start of BOB RotolĀ“s So in BOF I think there where non.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoLtre5Fm4o

J-HAT
Jan-21-2014, 17:46
I see Gruber's Dynamo mission as the historical version and the fall Dunkirk one as a poetically licensed version.

Zisi
Jan-22-2014, 01:06
there is no red equivalent and as the aircraft was not used in the timeframe of the mission then surely it's not realistic to have them available?

This general argument has been done to death and there's a lot of people who are pretty sick of it. I can't speak for the mission author, however for me this argument is kind of irrelevant, there are no "realistic" missions in clod. I really don't understand why people keep getting stuck on this, in the scheme of things, there's almost nothing realistic about any mission we fly on ATAG.

The bottom line for me is that we have at present, one map, and a handful of aircraft. Maybe the primary objective of the mission is to give a half decent excuse for fighting in the southern part of the map, which no other map on ATAG covers. While still flying the planes most people enjoy the most. The mission doesn't have to be historical, it's 100% fine with me if its hypothetical. What's wrong with a change of scenery? Why debate irrelevant minutiae like this?

The hypothetical is far more interesting to me. What would the BoB be like for example if it was fought by at most 100 pilots at a time, most having 100's if not 1000's of hours of experience, with no command and control, and usually only a minimal amount of coordination? Well, for the most part we have answered that question! A flight simulator, can do the best it can at simulating the aircraft, but in context of the above, it can do no more than a mockery of the scenario. Scenario's in online flight sims, are an excuse to fight in places of interest, and in the manner the mission designer wishes, nothing more. Want to draw players up to 20k? Put bombers up there. Want players to fight over france? Put all the spawn points and objectives down there. Add some flavour text in the briefing for immersion... but that's pretty much it.

What is written in the mission briefing, is not what makes a mission fun, it's what kind of encounters with other players that particular mission creates that make or break it. It might be more helpful in cases like this to simply PM the author, rather than trying to "call him out" on things you think are wrong.

Gromit
Jan-22-2014, 09:57
Well for starters I am not "calling " anyone out, I'm asking if there is a reason for these aircraft to be on the map as they were not available at that time, the reason is very simple, firstly we have two pitch red aircraft available in France which is correct for the timeframe so quite reasonably blue planeset should also reflect this, secondly we have offensive and defensive targets, you simply cannot protect red targets against these aircraft as they are too fast, they dive in bomb then go off dogfighting, that pretty much makes defending friendly targets a waste of time removing a role for pilots who try to defend , now from the other perspective, blue targets can only be attacked by Blenheims, which are slow and easy to see and have no ability to go dogfighting after dropping their bombs, so blue unlike red can effectively defend their targets, it's an unbalanced capability that should not be present if the timeframe is adhered to!

End result is attack pilots on blue fly the 109e3b because they can bomb then go fighting despite there being bombers for the job, no such opportunity is available to red, this may be an oversight , or it may be factored in, I am simply asking if the 109e3b is there for a reason, if not removing it rebalances the capabilities of both sides to attack/defend targets.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Jan-23-2014, 07:14
you simply cannot protect red targets against these aircraft as they are too fast, they dive in bomb then go off dogfighting, that pretty much makes defending friendly targets a waste of time removing a role for pilots who try to defend , now from the other perspective, blue targets can only be attacked by Blenheims, which are slow and easy to see and have no ability to go dogfighting after dropping their bombs, so blue unlike red can effectively defend their targets, it's an unbalanced capability that should not be present if the timeframe is adhered to!


Fair point. Maybe red should be given some 109 3b's too ;)
I guess that's just as unhistorical...

AKA_Recon
Jan-23-2014, 07:23
109 b's are all overused :)

show me the historical records of 90% of 109's flown in Battle of Britain using 109 b's in that quantity

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Jan-23-2014, 07:35
109 b's are all overused :)

show me the historical records of 90% of 109's flown in Battle of Britain using 109 b's in that quantity

Same could be said for spitfire too though...they're overused in game ;)

LuseKofte
Jan-23-2014, 08:11
The hurries stood for 2 of 3 shot down enemy ac. The hurry got its machine-guns very close together and had a greater punch than the Spit. I wonder if this is true in this game.
I am a very bad fighter pilot but I like flying the Hurrycane

ATAG_Headshot
Jan-23-2014, 08:56
The hurries stood for 2 of 3 shot down enemy ac. The hurry got its machine-guns very close together and had a greater punch than the Spit. I wonder if this is true in this game.
I am a very bad fighter pilot but I like flying the Hurrycane

The hurricane is definitely a better weapons platform in sim. It is more stable while firing and since it's guns are so close together it is easier to put a full wing worth of guns into a target at any range no matter your convergence. The spit will put less ammo into an enemy if you are too far out of convergence range.

ATAG_Snapper
Jan-23-2014, 12:54
Historically speaking the Hurricanes outnumbered the Spitfires by approximately 2:1 during the Battle of Britain, and this ratio was reflected in the number of kills by each. The Hurricanes were tasked principally to tackle the bombers and the Spitfires were to take out the fighter escort (although, like most plans in war, that often didn't work out that way).

Does anyone know the ratio of Luftwaffe bombers to fighters during the Battle of Britain? If there is to be a strict ratio allocation of Spits to Hurries in a mission based on "historical accuracy", then there must be the same ratio of Luftwaffe bombers to fighters also based on "historical accuracy".

Speaking as a Spitfire pilot I can certainly accept being allocated a Hurricane, but will a 109 pilot be as willing to accept a Ju87, Ju88, He111, or a Bf110 if the allocated ratio of 109's have been taken up?

Bear Pilot
Jan-23-2014, 14:39
What I've always read is on a typical raid there would be roughly two fighters to every one bomber. The raids I'm referring to were from Eagle Day through September 15th in the heart of the battle. Although I would assume the LW would keep sending heavy fighter escort after that. Although, it wouldn't be the first or last mistake the LW made if it did in fact decrease the ratio and still attempted daylight raids.

Talisman
Jan-24-2014, 12:05
What I've always read is on a typical raid there would be roughly two fighters to every one bomber. The raids I'm referring to were from Eagle Day through September 15th in the heart of the battle. Although I would assume the LW would keep sending heavy fighter escort after that. Although, it wouldn't be the first or last mistake the LW made if it did in fact decrease the ratio and still attempted daylight raids.

Had a quick look at order of battle strength for July 1940 and it looks like the LW had a ratio of much less than 1 single engine fighter per bomber. I have read that one of the reasons that the LW did not win the BoB is that they did not have enough fighter aircraft to support the bomber force. I have also read that not all bomber sorties had a fighter escort.

The RAF was engaged in a defensive action defending with a fighter force during the BoB against a LW attack in the form of a strategic bombing campaign by the LW using both bomber and fighter forces. If aircraft ratios are to be taken into account, perhaps it would be fair that the ratio of LW single engine fighters to bombers would be less than 1 to 1. If we have say 100 pilot slots per map at 50 each (perhaps less for RAF (red) to simulate being outnumbered), there will not be so many fighter pilots slots for blue me thinks, LOL (tongue in cheek).

Happy landings,

Talisman

P.S. Just read some figs on the internet for July 1940 showing serviceable RAF fighters as 243 Spitfire and 282 Hurricane. And for August serviceable 245 Spit and 341 Hurry.

J-HAT
Jan-24-2014, 12:43
That would work in bomber night or in a campaign. I don't think it would be a good idea to limit ratios of fighters and bombers on the server, for either side. Variants is one thing, like having only E-3 or Spit Ia 87 Oct and just a couple of the better variants, but not everyone would feel confortable "having" to fly a bomber.

If we go down this route we should start trying to enforce other things to make it more realistically. For example, having just a set of planes for a mission (if you die, bye bye or lose you plane wait an amount of time and see if you get a new one from your squadron). Forcing formations of bombers, forcing escorts, forcing realistic altitudes... not to talk about other general aspects of the game. In SoW it worked wonderfully, but it sure will not on a regular server (ie people who don't like that will go ao ewhere else).

The Dunkirk map has been relatively long in the rotation. Maybe it should stay a couple of months out in favor of the other Dunkirk? Or just remove the E-3B altogether but then please make a Stuka base closer (flying that thing that far takes a looong time). Actually, I think all the bases there should be closer to the front.

Bear Pilot
Jan-24-2014, 16:42
Had a quick look at order of battle strength for July 1940 and it looks like the LW had a ratio of much less than 1 single engine fighter per bomber. I have read that one of the reasons that the LW did not win the BoB is that they did not have enough fighter aircraft to support the bomber force. I have also read that not all bomber sorties had a fighter escort.

The RAF was engaged in a defensive action defending with a fighter force during the BoB against a LW attack in the form of a strategic bombing campaign by the LW using both bomber and fighter forces. If aircraft ratios are to be taken into account, perhaps it would be fair that the ratio of LW single engine fighters to bombers would be less than 1 to 1. If we have say 100 pilot slots per map at 50 each (perhaps less for RAF (red) to simulate being outnumbered), there will not be so many fighter pilots slots for blue me thinks, LOL (tongue in cheek).

Happy landings,

Talisman

P.S. Just read some figs on the internet for July 1940 showing serviceable RAF fighters as 243 Spitfire and 282 Hurricane. And for August serviceable 245 Spit and 341 Hurry.

Actually I think the ratio of serviceable LW aircraft was closer to 2:1 in favor of the bombers. There were far more bombers than fighters. However, the respective number of serviceable bombers and fighters and the number of sorties each group flew on any particular day was not necessarily one in the same. In fact, I argue they are not.

I've read the following information in books and on other sites but due to laziness I found this one again and figured it would suffice.

http://archive.iwm.org.uk/upload/package/27/battleofbritain/days.htm

If you have a look at the 13th and 15th of August, as well as the 7th of September, I believe you'll find that the number of LW sorties flown was in favor of their fighters by a ratio of 2:1

Now, do I think this was always the case? No, I don't and for a variety of reasons. Some of which being poor communication, weather interfering with rendezvous times, missed rendezvous altogether, or becoming separated from the bomber formations mid-flight. I also think some raids were never designed to have fighter escort. In that situation I think the targets of escortless bombers, whether they were twin-engined or Stukas, were often far from the other raids of the day and perhaps stealth was their best defense i.e. the low level raids against North Weald Something a fighter escort would have hampered on a radar screen.

I know there many more raids than the ones I listed and the ones listed on the website. If you look at the raid that flew from Norway it explicitly states that a flight of 100 Heinkels with an escort of 70 110's were intercepted off the coast. So there you go, example one. If you were to dig deep into BoB records. I'm sure there's plenty more where that came from. I'm talking few fighters than bombers not 110's on escort all alone. Soon they need their own escort of 109's.

However keep reading about that same day and you will see this sentence...."The Germans had learned the harsh lesson that bombers on operations in daylight could not hope to survive without escort by Messerschmitt 109 single-seat fighters."

Now whether or not the Germans took the lesson to heart all depends on facts and on September 7th, the first big day-light raid on London, they sent"over 300 bombers and 600 fighters".

Were there raids during the three week interval of 8/15/40 and 9/7/40 where there were fewer fighters than bombers? My bet would be yes. But I think it's clear that the Germans were at least smart enough to realize that if they were going to send over a big raid and wanted it to have a chance of getting through, they needed more fighters than bombers.

I estimate the Germans left half their bomber force on the ground many days, simply because without enough fighters, they were as good as dead.

Of course sufficient fighter escort was not always enough, Fighter Command proved that on Battle of Britain day 9/15/40. I argue that's largely because radar saw them massing over the French coast for hours before they went feet wet but that's another story.

Fighter Command did something similar. From your numbers there were almost equal numbers of Hurricanes and Spitfires in July and a ratio approaching 3:4 in favor of the Hurricane in August. So obviously Dowding and Park were protecting the precious Spitfires when they had the capability to send up equal numbers of both fighters.

If the information is not from a credible source, then me thinks you should give the Queen a ring and let her now her museum staff is falling down on the job ;)

Also, to all mission makers out there that tend to go with a historical background, the the site above provides some good information on the key dates of the BoB if you haven't seen it already.

:salute:

Bear Pilot
Jan-24-2014, 16:44
The Dunkirk map has been relatively long in the rotation. Maybe it should stay a couple of months out in favor of the other Dunkirk? Or just remove the E-3B altogether but then please make a Stuka base closer (flying that thing that far takes a looong time). Actually, I think all the bases there should be closer to the front.

I think this may be the easiest solution. It does seem odd to play two Dunkirk maps in quick succession. I agree on the Stuka base situation too. Although I think a rear base is absolutely necessary, something a little closer would make a huge difference.

LuseKofte
Jan-25-2014, 10:53
In general the LW was better in experienced pilots, better tactics , and some say better planes.
On the backside they fought over enemy territory, They was very badly organized, in terms of administration. RAF was so good organized and their airdefence strategy during ww2 are in many way textbook to date.
Luftwaffe sent their bombers from Norway Denmark And France in joint venture with 110 with plywood aux tanks , flying suicide fighters with little to non maneuverability. All were killed in one raid sent to a non existing airfield.
They really sucked in planning, and intact even in this early stage in war was short in resources. Hitler Gambeled his war was over in less than a year. When war brake out import fell to just 10%of what it was before outbreak of the war.
So my thought is , what the hell was they thinking. Hitler himself said when it started if the war last more than a year we will loose. So he knew what was coming

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Jan-25-2014, 12:31
Mission bug;

7 direct hits on Minesuchboot. Did no sink.

I have track recorded if anyone wants to review.

Moved to another server.

DUI
Jan-25-2014, 13:01
Sounds like the "unsinkable ships" bug - not really a mission but a game bug.

The work-around normally is to already make the target achieved before the last ship of a convoy is sunk.

Gromit
Jan-26-2014, 08:44
In general the LW was better in experienced pilots, better tactics , and some say better planes.
On the backside they fought over enemy territory, They was very badly organized, in terms of administration. RAF was so good organized and their airdefence strategy during ww2 are in many way textbook to date.
Luftwaffe sent their bombers from Norway Denmark And France in joint venture with 110 with plywood aux tanks , flying suicide fighters with little to non maneuverability. All were killed in one raid sent to a non existing airfield.
They really sucked in planning, and intact even in this early stage in war was short in resources. Hitler Gambeled his war was over in less than a year. When war brake out import fell to just 10%of what it was before outbreak of the war.
So my thought is , what the hell was they thinking. Hitler himself said when it started if the war last more than a year we will loose. So he knew what was coming

Simple case of underestimating your opponent!

Germany marched across Europe with hardly a setback defeating nations hardly prepared for a war, a major contributor was the Luftwaffe, the Stuka was at the start of the war the finest close support aircraft in the world, well integrated into Blitzkrieg, their tactics were better at the start after learning the lessons of modern air combat in Spain and their pilots and unit leaders were experienced and confident, once they got to the channel there was no real reason for them to think they could not carry on the trend and overwhelm the RAF too!

Hitler banked on the UK suing for peace, there was after all a large number of politicians who were borderline pacifist and had no stomach for the war!

unfortunately for them a small English bloke with a funny moustache had spent the previous year getting ready to fight the upcoming battle and a short fat English bloke with a cigar had no intention of any kind of compromise!

The UK held several advantages, one was it's level of organisation and early warning (I include the much overlooked but critical observer corps in this), RAF intelligence painted a more accurate (yet overly pessimistic view) of the balance of forces, another was the fact their short range defensive fighters had less distance to cover, another was the manufacturing and repair infrastructure and toward the end pilot training, the UK ended the battle with more aircraft and pilots than they started it!

In the air they could match the Luftwaffe in aircraft quality, their tactics had to evolve as the battle progressed, (but that was no different to what the Condor legion had to do in Spain) and any airman bailing out over the UK could be back in the fight the next day!

For the Luftwaffe there were several major failings, their intelligence was, to be polite, amateurish bordering on incompetent, grossly underestimating RAF strength and grossly overestimating their successes, their aircraft were more suited to the Blitzkreig type of campaign than a longer ranged strategic battle, And their choice of targets was poor, only one sector station was out of action for more than 24hrs during the whole battle and a number of the fields attacked were not even Fighter Command fields, besides which bombing airfields is pointless when your opponent simply disperses his aircraft to satellite fields!

End result was a disaster for the Luftwaffe, their aim was to write down the RAF, they failed, to clear the way for a possible invasion, they failed, and to either take the UK out of the war politically or to side-line it, they failed!

Hitlers gamble, had his bluff called by Churchill!

CanvasKnight
Feb-01-2014, 06:23
Edit: Since this is sort of a criticism (but constructive I hope and not just bitter) I'll use that format suggested in the other thread. I think this actual issue with the mission is more important than any of the debate about plane introduction dates or whether the map is autumn or spring because it seriously restricts the ability of bomber pilots to comfortably fly on the map.

1. For the blue side there is only one bomber base at Tramecourt. All of the Blue bombers including the Stukas are located at it, there are none at other airfields.
2. Because there is only one bomber airbase, and it is very far from all of the friendly fighter bases (though not farther from the frontline, and thus the enemy, than any of the German fighter bases), it is laughably easy to prevent Blue bomber activity on the mission altogether just by suppressing this one airbase. Tonight when it came on, I noticed that several Red fighters raced straight to Tramecourt right after the mission started at low altitude to strafe this airfield. A the timezone I was playing in, there were no Blue pilots on TS to ask for fighter cover. It is quite literally impossible to play as a Blue bomber pilot if this happens because there are no alternative airfields to move to. The only counter to the strafing available to the player is to simply not play or to fly fighters, which means no bomber pilots.
3. I suggest the solution of creating more airbases on the map, especially at least one more base for bombers and Stukas. Even if you want to keep the bombers at that specific airfield (Tramecourt is a big, paved airfield perfect for level bombers) please don't restrict the Stukas to only that airfield. Stukas are quite capable of taking off from small grass fighter airfields too, and that would be much preferable to being forced to take off from the deathtrap that is Tramecourt on this map. If more bases can't be added, or the bombing/ground attack planes can't added to the fighter base plane rosters and we are only going to have the one medium bomber base at Tramecourt, then the flak at that specific base should be strengthened significantly.

Tettric
Feb-01-2014, 18:58
I can understand the arguments there Gromit. While i dont want to pick "sides", i do need to ask: Were there Spits IA or even Spits I available on France, at same time frame?

From what I've read there were no Spits based in France but there were of course Spits in Britain, these Spits were usually flown by squadrons based in inland Britain but if a squadron was due to fly out over Dunkirk squadrons would move temporarily to coastal fields up too 48hrs in advance.
:recon: As I said this is just what I gathered from reading what I have over the years, don't quote me!

Tettric
Feb-01-2014, 19:02
Edit: Since this is sort of a criticism (but constructive I hope and not just bitter) I'll use that format suggested in the other thread. I think this actual issue with the mission is more important than any of the debate about plane introduction dates or whether the map is autumn or spring because it seriously restricts the ability of bomber pilots to comfortably fly on the map.

1. For the blue side there is only one bomber base at Tramecourt. All of the Blue bombers including the Stukas are located at it, there are none at other airfields.
2. Because there is only one bomber airbase, and it is very far from all of the friendly fighter bases (though not farther from the frontline, and thus the enemy, than any of the German fighter bases), it is laughably easy to prevent Blue bomber activity on the mission altogether just by suppressing this one airbase. Tonight when it came on, I noticed that several Red fighters raced straight to Tramecourt right after the mission started at low altitude to strafe this airfield. A the timezone I was playing in, there were no Blue pilots on TS to ask for fighter cover. It is quite literally impossible to play as a Blue bomber pilot if this happens because there are no alternative airfields to move to. The only counter to the strafing available to the player is to simply not play or to fly fighters, which means no bomber pilots.
3. I suggest the solution of creating more airbases on the map, especially at least one more base for bombers and Stukas. Even if you want to keep the bombers at that specific airfield (Tramecourt is a big, paved airfield perfect for level bombers) please don't restrict the Stukas to only that airfield. Stukas are quite capable of taking off from small grass fighter airfields too, and that would be much preferable to being forced to take off from the deathtrap that is Tramecourt on this map. If more bases can't be added, or the bombing/ground attack planes can't added to the fighter base plane rosters and we are only going to have the one medium bomber base at Tramecourt, then the flak at that specific base should be strengthened significantly.

Maybe the inclusion of the Me109E3b is an attempt to remedy this?

Gromit
Feb-02-2014, 06:49
The 109e3b is simply a high performance low level dogfighter, at least that's how it's used in this game!