PDA

View Full Version : Oleg, incredible expansion but 1 major complaint.



Hunde_3.JG51
03-03-2004, 02:55 PM
The P-51B does not belong in the 1942 planeset. It operated in Europe for less than a month before the end of 1943. I can live with it as a '43 plane but '42 can't be right.

Also, Malcolm hood was not installed on P-51 until '44 but the P-51C with Malcolm hood is in '43 plane-set. This is not a big deal, the P-51B in '42 is a big deal/problem.

Thanks for an incredible job, expansion is great. Take care.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Hunde_3.JG51
03-03-2004, 02:55 PM
The P-51B does not belong in the 1942 planeset. It operated in Europe for less than a month before the end of 1943. I can live with it as a '43 plane but '42 can't be right.

Also, Malcolm hood was not installed on P-51 until '44 but the P-51C with Malcolm hood is in '43 plane-set. This is not a big deal, the P-51B in '42 is a big deal/problem.

Thanks for an incredible job, expansion is great. Take care.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Future-
03-03-2004, 03:02 PM
I agree here, no P-51's entered service until late '43, so having the "B" in the '42 set is completely bogus.

S!

- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg

Visit us at http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

VW-IceFire
03-03-2004, 03:03 PM
I wouldn't classify this as a major complaint. Minor at best.

Aside from denoting a year, as far as I know the date tag has no impact on gameplay at all. Furthermore, any server admin running a year based setup would probably ensure that the P-51B was not used in the 1942 setup but in the 1943 or 1944 setup.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

crazyivan1970
03-03-2004, 03:59 PM
No worries, noted and will be excluded from 1942 planeset on my server =)

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Magister__Ludi
03-03-2004, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
No worries, noted and will be excluded from 1942 planeset on my server =)


It should not be included in '43 plane set eigther. It flew only a few missions in December '43 before it was grounded because of mechanical failures.

P-51B/C is a '44 plane.

PzKpfw
03-03-2004, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:


It should not be included in '43 plane set eigther. It flew only a few missions in December '43 before it was grounded because of mechanical failures.

P-51B/C is a '44 plane.


The first 8th AF P-51Bs began operations on Dec 1 1943. 24 P-51B from the 354th FG flew a FS from Belgium - France.

Dec 5: - FS to Amiens, and 2 Sqd's fly BE to Paix.

Dec 13th: - Escort to Kiel.

Dec 20th: Escort to Bremen.

No mention of any being grounded by mechanichal failures etc. By Jan 21 1944 the 354th P-51Bs are credited with destruction of 103 enemy A/C.


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

Magister__Ludi
03-03-2004, 04:49 PM
The mechanical failures encountered from mid December '43 to mid January '44 are mentioned on Baugher's site. He gives his sources there.

Besides it's unfair to put in the same plane set a fighter flying from the first month of a particular year with a fighter flying in only in the last month of that year. If it flew combat missions only in December it does not belong to that year.

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Wed March 03 2004 at 03:57 PM.]

CO_Eagle_31stFG
03-03-2004, 05:04 PM
31st Recieved their 51's in March 1944.

Why is this significant you might say, well the 31st was the 1st US fighter group to enter the European theatre.

This qoute from a 31st history page:
Most of the pilots were not too thrilled at first to have to give up their Spitfires. From the time they first went into action in August 1942, up to March 1944 when the finally traded in the Spitfires for P-51s, the group had destroyed 194 1/2 enemy planes and had grown quite fond of the Spitfire.

Gunner_361st
03-03-2004, 05:17 PM
Your logic is flawed, Magister.

The P51-B first flew in '43 and first saw combat missions at the end of 43, as posted, in December.

Technically, this does make it a 1943 aircraft.

The YP-80 first flew in early 1944, but saw only limited combat operations in 1945. What year does that make the airplane?

Do you think the years in which aircraft we can fly in Forgotten Battles are determined by the year they first flew or the year they first saw combat?

Because in either case, the P51-B would qualify as a 1943 plane. If there is some standard I am not familiar with, please... tell me. :)

Captain Gunner of the 361st VFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

JG77Hawk_9
03-03-2004, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by Gunner_361st:
Your logic is flawed, Magister.

The P51-B first flew in '43 and first saw combat missions at the end of 43, as posted, in December.

Technically, this does make it a 1943 aircraft.

The YP-80 first flew in early 1944, but saw only limited combat operations in 1945. What year does that make the airplane?

Do you think the years in which aircraft we can fly in Forgotten Battles are determined by the year they first flew or the year they first saw combat?

Because in either case, the P51-B would qualify as a 1943 plane. If there is some standard I am not familiar with, please... tell me. :)

Captain Gunner of the 361st VFG

Easy, look at when it suposedly saw service although the P80 never was used in combat so maybe just use it in 46 servers.

Ahhh, the wait, I'll try tomorrow for a copy or just after the weekend as I'm going camping (long one for us here in the land of Oz).

Gunner_361st
03-03-2004, 05:33 PM
From what I understand, yes, Hawk.. It flew sorties but it did not encounter enemy aircraft...

This does not make it a 1946 aircraft. How would you determine year for the BF109-Z then, which never even flew?

Have fun camping. Watch out for bears and goblins. Especially the green ones.

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

Magister__Ludi
03-03-2004, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by Gunner_361st:
Your logic is flawed, Magister.

The P51-B first flew in '43 and first saw combat missions at the end of 43, as posted, in December.

Technically, this does make it a 1943 aircraft.

The YP-80 first flew in early 1944, but saw only limited combat operations in 1945. What year does that make the airplane?

Do you think the years in which aircraft we can fly in Forgotten Battles are determined by the year they first flew or the year they first saw combat?

Because in either case, the P51-B would qualify as a 1943 plane. If there is some standard I am not familiar with, please... tell me. :)

Captain Gunner of the 361st VFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg



YP-80 is just a prototype not a combat ready aircraft. Most of them were lost in test flying accidents. YP-80 was an aircraft plagued by serious technical defects, from airframe rigidity to unreliable (downright dangerous to put it better) powerplant.

P-80 become operational in summer of '46. Until then it was in "operational testing" meaning that most flight hours were flown by a group of veteran pilots, and only a few and very restricted flights were tried in regular squadrons.

Your example with YP-80 is not relevant in this case.

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Wed March 03 2004 at 07:59 PM.]

PzKpfw
03-03-2004, 10:45 PM
The P-51B was first used operationaly in the ETO in 1943, and yes it did see combat Ie, 103 destroyed LW AC by Jan 21 1944. Unless someone here wants to contend the P-51B destroyed 103 AC in just 21 days 8P.

The P-51B shakedown was Dec 1 1943 Ie, they ran w/o the xtra fuselage tank, nor drop tanks. On Dec 13 the 354th put up 46 P-51Bs on an escort to Kiel, Bremen, & Hamburg (75gal DTs) with 1 Me 110 claimed & 1 P-51B lost. P-51Bs flew 361 effective missions from Dec 1 - 31 1943*.

As to problems their were reports of gun jams, frosting, plug fouls, coolant leaks, and radio problems on the Jan 5th 1944 Mission to Kiel, yet their were also 15 enemy AC destroyed claims for 0 losses. Jrom Jan 1 - Jan 31 1944 P-51Bs flew *325 missions.

We have the Ta 152H-1 correct? this AC never saw operational service or combat till March 1945, Ie, the Stabsschwarm JG 301 recieved their first Ta 152s, in March, yet I imagine its still listed as a 1945 AC?, i wont know till my copy of Aces gets here Friday.


*See: Dean Francis H. America's Hundred-Thousand. p.334


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

Maple_Tiger
03-03-2004, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
The mechanical failures encountered from mid December '43 to mid January '44 are mentioned on Baugher's site. He gives his sources there.

Besides it's unfair to put in the same plane set a fighter flying from the first month of a particular year with a fighter flying in only in the last month of that year. If it flew combat missions only in December it does not belong to that year.

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Wed March 03 2004 at 03:57 PM.]



Wow Magister_Ludi.

You have a real proublom with this issue. Did we not argue about this for a few days?


Your thinking only one sided.

If it saw combat in 43 then its a 43 plane.. pretty simple realy.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

Hunde_3.JG51
03-04-2004, 01:04 AM
Hmmm, in another thread I believe Oleg said the P-51B being in the '42 planest was not an error. I'm not sure what the thinking is here but at least the server admins will adjust accordingly. Strange. Oh well, expansion is still awesome.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

HarryVoyager
03-04-2004, 01:44 AM
I think I see what's going on. The development of the P-51B finished up in the end of 1942, and I think that is when the plane is being dated from.

Harry Voyager

crazyivan1970
03-04-2004, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
No worries, noted and will be excluded from 1942 planeset on my server =)


It should not be included in '43 plane set eigther. It flew only a few missions in December '43 before it was grounded because of mechanical failures.

P-51B/C is a '44 plane.

If we approach it that way... then we shouldn`t have IL-2 with rear gunner till 1943, La5FN in 1943 and so on... If it saw action in 1943... then it`s included... unless it`s experimental plane :D

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Magister__Ludi
03-04-2004, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:

Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
No worries, noted and will be excluded from 1942 planeset on my server =)


It should not be included in '43 plane set eigther. It flew only a few missions in December '43 before it was grounded because of mechanical failures.

P-51B/C is a '44 plane.

If we approach it that way... then we shouldn`t have IL-2 with rear gunner till 1943, La5FN in 1943 and so on... If it saw action in 1943... then it`s included... unless it`s experimental plane :D

V!
Regards,



If it saw action only in the last month of an year it should not be in that year plane set. As simple as that. A few actions in December is not a reason serious enough to include it in that year plane set. Especially for planes that appeared in late '43, because this is the period in which it was made the transition from early to late war designs (fast and very well armed).
That should be a rule for every plane in the game, not just for P-51B/C.

crazyivan1970
03-04-2004, 02:23 AM
Magister, do you honestly believe that 109G`s and FW`s can`t handle pony? :D

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Magister__Ludi
03-04-2004, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Magister, do you honestly believe that 109G`s and FW`s can`t handle pony? :D

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST



I don't care about who handles whom, I care about introduction in operational service dates. Those dates are important if we still think of FB as a simulator.

crazyivan1970
03-04-2004, 02:39 AM
I don`t follow you mate... if plane saw action in 1943... it doesn`t matter when and how... it`s 1943...

If you born is December 31st of... "insert year here" does it mean that you were really born next year? Makes sence?

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Magister__Ludi
03-04-2004, 02:53 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I don`t follow you mate... if plane saw action in 1943... it doesn`t matter when and how... it`s 1943...

If you born is December 31st of... "insert year here" does it mean that you were really born next year? Makes sence?

V!
Regards,



I'm sorry Ivan but you don't make much sense here.
A plane that sees service in a particular year gathering a total of less than 100 sorties pales in comparison with other planes that saw thousands of combat sorties. One month of service before grounding it again because of malfunctions proves that it was rushed anyway. But even if it wasn't rushed only a month of service is simply not enough.

This limit is not arbitrary. Airforces often got lots of replacements with new models at the passing from one year to another for planned missions in the new year; sometimes those replacements arived in December sometimes in January. But those are planes reserved for missions in the new year.

I understand the inclusion of a plane in one particular year plane set if it saw at least two months of combat in that year. This is a very reasonable criteria and should be imposed to all the planes.

PzKpfw
03-04-2004, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

[b]
A plane that sees service in a particular year gathering a total of less than 100 sorties pales in comparison with other planes that saw thousands of combat sorties.

P-51Bs flew 361 missions from Dec 1 - 31 1943.

[b] [quote]

One month of service before grounding it again because of malfunctions proves that it was rushed anyway. But even if it wasn't rushed only a month of service is simply not enough.

Their is nothing I can find on any 'grounding' of P-51Bs etc, in Dean's AHT, O'leary's NAA P-51 etc. Ie, you claim it was grounded a 'month' after service, yet from Jan 1 - 31 1944 P-51Bs flew 325 missions.

4th FG had problems converting from P-47's in Feb 1944 which included 'failure in aircraft systems' that led to remarks about the P-51B being 'experimental' etc, which was attributed to the speed of the conversion process, Feb 24 - 29th. The P-51D was entering service with the 8th AF in March 1944 as well.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Thu March 04 2004 at 11:17 AM.]

Koohullin
03-04-2004, 07:10 AM
What can be such a big problem? Just restrict the a/c to which quarter of a year that it saw operational service.

The P-51B would be restricted to a/c of the 4th quarter of 1943.

JG53Frankyboy
03-04-2004, 07:16 AM
is the Bf110G2 still 1942 ?

thats also wrong, first units got it in january 43.
and the Bf110G2/R3 , well, produced december 43 ;)

BUT, is realy NOT a mayor problem :)