PDA

View Full Version : your the head man. choose your ride.



fordfan25
08-26-2005, 10:03 PM

ClnlSandersLite
08-26-2005, 10:13 PM
My answer is really going to depend on scale here. Are we talking about divisions, army groups, corps, etc?

fordfan25
08-26-2005, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by ClnlSandersLite:
My answer is really going to depend on scale here. Are we talking about divisions, army groups, corps, etc?

gop ahead and pick any one you want or give resones for each. just please give at least a small explanation as to why you made the choice in wich case you choose.

fordfan25
08-26-2005, 10:17 PM
or you could choose option 5. hristo and his cloned clown army http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif j/k

Von_Zero
08-26-2005, 10:33 PM
Variation for sure...
imagine Ar-234 escorted by Me-262s bombing ahead of the Hs-129's that come to chop everything on the ground with 109's for escort.. and obviously the well deserved 190 top cover http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

ElAurens
08-26-2005, 10:49 PM
Given the state of WW2 technology one type would not suffice.

I will need 4 distinct types. (I'm leaving jets out because I hate them).

1. Long range heavy bomber. Aircraft: B 29

2. Long range escort fighter: Aircraft: P 51

3. Multi role fighter: Aircraft: F4 U

4. Transport: Aircraft: DC 3

That ought to do it.

Luftwaffe_109
08-26-2005, 10:57 PM
fordfan25


I will need 4 distinct types. (I'm leaving jets out because I hate them).

1. Long range heavy bomber. Aircraft: B 29

2. Long range escort fighter: Aircraft: P 51
Why would a battlefield commander need long range, strategic heavy bombers? These are useful for attacking industry, population areas, communications centres, other strategic targets but not really suited to supporting ground campaigns.

It sounds to me that fordfan25 is describing a tactical or operational level situation. I'd go for fighters, say Bf-109s, to achieve air superiority and employ dedicated close airsupport and tactical bombers (say Ju-87s and Ju-88s or He-111s respectivly) in close conjunction with my troops, armour and artillery.

Then again, a battlefield commander wouldn't be able to make these kind of decisions, but assuming I could cooperate well with the airforce this is what I'd do.

fordfan25
08-26-2005, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
fordfan25

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I will need 4 distinct types. (I'm leaving jets out because I hate them).

1. Long range heavy bomber. Aircraft: B 29

2. Long range escort fighter: Aircraft: P 51
Why would a battlefield commander need long range, strategic heavy bombers? These are useful for attacking industry, population areas, communications centres, other strategic targets but not really suited to supporting ground campaigns.

It sounds to me that fordfan25 is describing a tactical or operational level situation. I'd go for fighters, say Bf-109s, to achieve air superiority and employ dedicated close airsupport and tactical bombers (say Ju-87s and Ju-88s or He-111s respectivly) in close conjunction with my troops, armour and artillery.

Then again, a bettlefield commander wouldn't be able to make these kind of decisions, but assuming I could cooperate well with the airforce this is what I'd do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes u r correct thats more in line with the situation i was thinking of. but eather way is fine.

fordfan25
08-26-2005, 11:45 PM
for me its all multi roll fighters. hear is why. longistics. with a single type of plane in the multi roll you have a plane that can both ground pound as well as engage in A2A.You can argue that you can still do that with both types Bomber/fighter mixture and your right you get the best of both. now hear is were my line of thinking comes into play. when you have two planes so deff from one another and say a number of bomber piolets gets killed. even if you have extra bombers you have to replace the piolets.now what if you cant get freash piolets or at least in short order. you are then faced with eather a lack of bombers or haveing to put fighter piolets in the bombers. that presents a problem in that the fighter piolets from a dedecated air2air fighter will not more than likely be fermilure with said bomber or the skill's in wich to use it effectivly. now with a multi roll fighter you elimanate that problem.

also on the same note with your air group made up of the same multi roll fighter you have the abilty to enterchange parts as well as stock fewer types of parts. pluse your ground crews will all be able to work on all the planes istead of haveing some ground crews who only know how to fix some of the planes.

thats just my opinion and why i started the poll. i wanted to hear other points of view.


and agien im talking more tact rather than strtegic *forgive spelling*

Fehler
08-26-2005, 11:49 PM
F-15 Strike Eagle is all you need...

And air refueling, of course...

fordfan25
08-26-2005, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by Fehler:
F-15 Strike Eagle is all you need...

And air refueling, of course...

not if 1c moddles it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif j/k

ElAurens
08-27-2005, 12:22 AM
Tactical units win individual battles.

Stratigic units win wars...

I would never enter a battle that would have no effect on winning the war.

Luftwaffe_109
08-27-2005, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
I would never enter a battle that would have no effect on winning the war.

This doesn't change the fact that long-range strategic bombers are not really useful to battlefield commanders in a battle. They are usually employed on a strategic and grand-strategic level, not tactical and operational.

fordfan25
08-27-2005, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Tactical units win individual battles.

Stratigic units win wars...

I would never enter a battle that would have no effect on winning the war.

every battle has an effect.

Slater_51st
08-27-2005, 12:57 AM
My vote is definately for a multi-role fighter. In the Pacific and Korea, the F4u was used to effect in this role. Also, the P-47 in Europe. Though considered outclassed, the P-40 in the Med did a stand up job at both of these. In the Ost front, the Fw190 A/F performed fighter and Jabo roles at least as well as any other German A/C in that area.

The keys to these fighter, imho, are heavy armament(4x20mm, or 6x50/8x50 cal), air cooled radial engine, good performance, and of course the ability to soak up damage. The problem that the P-40 and Fw-190 both had was poor high alt performance, so my vote would tend to lead towards the Corsair or the Jug. Why make two plane types when one will do the job just as well?

Of course, in not all situations would this work effectively.

S! Slate

Dolemite-
08-27-2005, 01:11 AM
Forget the planes! All I need is a Magnum, I'll take out the enemy by myself!

http://rhapody2000.free.fr/images/wallpapers/Dirty_Harry.jpg

danjama
08-27-2005, 02:51 PM
Original poster: All that writin just to ask what our fave planes are and why? No need http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif lol just playin http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Id take a 190, a P47 and a F4U-1C, because they can take lots o damage. And u need cannons. The P47 dont have cannons but it sure can fly at the right speed and alt. Be sure!

Kuna15
08-27-2005, 03:05 PM
Last option. Gimme some variety. Variety is good.

Friendly_flyer
08-27-2005, 03:07 PM
As Cl. Sanders mentioned, this is a question of scale. If the operation is large enough, I would go for specialised planes (fighter and ground pounder). However, the more realistic situation would be on a scale of a couple of squadrons, in which case I would go for the multi-role fighter-bomber for the sake of logistics. As Slater said, cannons are a must, which in my view disqualifies the American birds. I think a late Spitfire or a Tempest would fit the bill, as long as long range is not of essence.

fordfan25
08-27-2005, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
As Cl. Sanders mentioned, this is a question of scale. If the operation is large enough, I would go for specialised planes (fighter and ground pounder). However, the more realistic situation would be on a scale of a couple of squadrons, in which case I would go for the multi-role fighter-bomber for the sake of logistics. As Slater said, cannons are a must, which in my view disqualifies the American birds. I think a late Spitfire or a Tempest would fit the bill, as long as long range is not of essence.


why are cannons a must? remember planes like the f4u/38 ect can carry a heafty number of rockets and bombs for ground attach. even 20mm i would not think would hurt any decent tank and the higher rate of fire as well as the larger number of gun's would be more effective for infantry.