| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Posts: 110
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
 |
|
G'day all,
In W@S they would likely be attacking ships from a shallow dive (ie typical fighter-bomber) profile rather than as a (high) level bomber.
IIRC some aircrews were exceptionally accurate with their bombs - including a famous gaol breaking attack that I can't remember the name of..
from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeHavilland_Mosquito
"On 21 June 1941 the Air Ministry ordered that the last ten Mosquitos, ordered as PR aircraft, should be converted to bomber use. These ten machines were part of the original 1 March 1940 production order. These became the B.IV Series I. Aircraft W4072 was to be the prototype. It flew for the first time on 8 September 1941. The 50 B.IV series II bombers differed from the series I in having a larger bomb bay to increase the payload to four 500 lb bombs instead of four 250 lb (115 kg) bombs of Series I. This was made possible by shortening the stabilizer of the 500 lb (230 kg) bomb so that these four larger weapons could be carried.[51]
The bomber prototype led to the B Mk IV, of which 273 were built.[52] The B Mk IV could accommodate four 500 lb bombs, or a 2,000 lb (227 kg) total load in the bomb bay.[52] Some of these variants were later converted for special operations with the Highball anti-shipping weapon. A B.IV was used a trials aircraft for the bomb. In RAF Bomber Command 54 B.IVs were modified to have bulged bomb bays to carry a 4,000 lb (1,812 kg) High explosive bomb to operate as a light night-striking force.[52]"
and
"[edit] Fighter-bomber aircraft
The most numerous Mosquito variant was the FB Mk VI fighter-bomber of which 2,298 were built, some one-third of Mosquito production.[49] The protoype was converted from a B.VI first flew in February 1943.[49] The FB Mk VI was powered by two 1,460 hp (1,088 kW) Merlin 21s or 1,635 hp (1,218 kW) Merlin 25s.[49] It first flew on 1 June 1942. Some 19 that were built by Airspeed Ltd were eventually modified to be completed as FB.XVIIIs. Two were converted to TR.33 maritime assault prototypes. The variant was generally armed with four 20 mm cannon and four .303 (7.7 mm) machine guns for hitting soft ground targets. The main hitting power came from the two 250 lb (115 kg) bombs enclosed in the bomb bay plus more and was later plus two RP-3 "60 lb" rockets to carry out anti-shipping strikes. Other variations of armament fixtures could have entailed eight 60 lb (27 kg) rockets in place of any other internal load. Later the main bomb load was upgraded to two 500 lb (230 kg) bombs. Alternatively, a third option could have been a aerial mine or depth charge for attacking German submarines.[49] The FB Mk VI proved durable in dogfights with single-engine fighter aircraft. Retaining the forward firing armament Mosquito FB Mk VIs of No. 143 Squadron RAF were engaged by 30 Focke-Wulf Fw 190s from Jagdgeschwader 5 on 15 January 1945. In the ensuing battle the Mosquitos lost five aircraft but shot down five Fw 190s in return as well as sinking an armed trawler and two merchant ships.[58]"
OH.. and teh mozzie could be:
"Torpedo reconnaissance fighter aircraft
To meet specification N.15/44 for Royal Navy use, de Havilland produced a carrier-borne variant. This resulted in 50 Sea Mosquito TR Mk 33s which featured folding wings, a thimble nose radome and fuselage hardpoints for mounting aerial torpedoes. These were followed by 14 Sea Mosquito TR Mk 37s, which differed in having ASV Mk. XIII radar instead of the TR.33's AN/APS-6."
_________________
all the best
David |
|
 Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:31 am |
|
|
Posts: 9280
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
AA 8? It wasn't really a Hellcat.
_________________
 
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:51 am |
|
|
Posts: 110
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| NeuralDream wrote: | | AA 8? It wasn't really a Hellcat. |
But it could be the equal of a Fw190...
"The FB Mk VI proved durable in dogfights with single-engine fighter aircraft. Retaining the forward firing armament Mosquito FB Mk VIs of No. 143 Squadron RAF were engaged by 30 Focke-Wulf Fw 190s from Jagdgeschwader 5 on 15 January 1945. In the ensuing battle the Mosquitos lost five aircraft but shot down five Fw 190s in return as well as sinking an armed trawler and two merchant ships.[58]"
Of course the Mozzies could just have rolled lots of 6's...
_________________
all the best
David |
|
| Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:34 am |
|
|
Posts: 727
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
But it could be the equal of a Fw190... |
Not realy. That example is from 1945, not 1941 or 1943. Also, their are numerous qutoes that and Wikipedia is source (nor the choosen sources in wikipedia). As neural dream quoted: The Mosquito is not the Hellcat.
_________________
Map
Midway
Strategic Map
North Atlantic and Mediteran Sea, Pacific and Eastern Indic |
|
| Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:39 am |
|
|
Posts: 110
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Texas_Archer wrote: | Logres, There really needs to be two for one very important reason:
the English Don't have an early war bomber. Swordfish don't count, and the Bearufighter just dosen't cut it in that role. The 1941 bomber only version that I came up with is very simple and has the same bomb value as a barracuda, but can't be used every turn. the 1943 fighter/bomber will stop halifax complaining, in my opinion, and will give the english a very versitile, albeit expensive plane. |
G'day all,
The early Mosquitos were not really used in the anti-shipping role.. the later ones definately!
If looking for an early war anti-shipping bomber for the UK - then could I suggest the Blenheim light bomber of which there is a ForuMINI card.
Alternatively we could ask for a card for the:
Bristol Beaufort
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Beaufort
"Although it did see some use in the torpedo bomber role, notably in attacks on the battlecruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau while in port in Brest, the Beaufort more often used bombs or mines while in European service. It saw considerable action in the Mediterranean theatre, where it helped put an end to Axis shipping supplying Rommel in North Africa.[12][3]
By early 1940, 22 Squadron was fully equipped, although a great deal of training in the specialised art of torpedo-dropping was needed by the crews. Because of this, and because of a shortage of torpedoes the squadron's first operations consisted of laying magnetic mines ("Gardening" in RAF parlance) and dropping conventional bombs. The first operation took place on the night of 15/16 April when nine Beauforts successfully laid mines in the Schilling Roads (north of Wilhelmshaven). One Beaufort failed to return. In the meantime A second unit 42 Squadron was also re-equipped with Beauforts, starting in April.
On one of its first bombing operations, on 7 May 1940, a Beaufort dropped the first British 2,000 lb (910 kg) bomb, aiming at a German cruiser anchored off Norderney.[3][13]
The first RAF torpedo attack of the war came on 11 September 1940, when five aircraft of 22 Squadron attacked a convoy of three merchant ships off Ostend. One torpedo hit a 6,000 ton (5,440 tonne) ship. Four days later, the first "Rover" was mounted; a Rover was an armed reconnaissance mission carried out against enemy shipping by a small number of aircraft operating independently. "Rovers" became a major part of Beaufort operations over the next next 18 months.[14] Other more hazardous operations were to follow, with one Beaufort pilot being awarded a posthumous VC.
The only other UK based units to be equipped with the Beaufort, 86 Squadron and 217 Squadron, were operational by the middle of 1941"
1940 - Bombs, torpedoes and mines.... 
_________________
all the best
David |
|
| Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:43 am |
|
|
Posts: 110
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Otto von Starkburg wrote: | | Quote: |
But it could be the equal of a Fw190... |
Not realy. That example is from 1945, not 1941 or 1943. Also, their are numerous qutoes that and Wikipedia is source (nor the choosen sources in wikipedia). As neural dream quoted: The Mosquito is not the Hellcat. |
G'day all,
I think AA8 against fighters is too high as well - while it was very effective as an intruder and night fighter - it wasn't a dogfighter.
Hence the comment that in that particular quoted case the UK player may have rolled lots of 6's..
How about:
AA 8
SA: Poor dogfighter - this unit rolls 2 fewer dice when attacking enemy fighters.
Makes it deadly against bombers...
Otherwise - more in keeping with the Beufighter armament - but much faster (hence a far better interceptor)
AA 6
SA: Advanced Interceptor - if there are no enemy Fighters in the same sector as this unit, this unit rolls two extra attack die when making Antiair attacks against enemy bombers.
Makes it deadly only against bombers without fighters
Noting that both of the above SA's limit the Mozzie no matter how bad the fighter is - eg Me110...
_________________
all the best
David |
|
| Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:00 am |
|
|
SOCCEROO FEVER
Posts: 6808
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
The Beaufort was a significant plane for Australia.
_________________
 |
|
| Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:02 am |
|
|
Posts: 110
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| RAEVSKI wrote: | | The Beaufort was a significant plane for Australia. |
G'day all,
Was it? What a co-incident that I'd like to see a card for it.... 
ps. Can we re-visit the Boomerang? I've been reading "more than small heros" and a bit on the operation use of the Boomerang and I think that the Boomerang in the W@S game would be better modelling the TAC/R use than the "interceptor/escort" use.. mainly since it saw far more combat in the TAC/R role - and did very well in it...
_________________
all the best
David |
|
| Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:14 am |
|
|
Posts: 110
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: Card Request: De Havilland Mosquito
|
|
|
| Texas_Archer wrote: | De Havilland Mosquito FB. MK VI
Year: 1943
Points: 14
MG: 3
AA: 8
Bombs: 12 (4x 500LB bombs)
DC: 2 (was credited with sinking or helping to sink 8 U-boats over the course of the war. Don't know if it was from DC or rockets though)
Armor: 5 Vital Armor: 8, HP: 1
SA: Mission Selection (can only DC as a bomber)
SA: Robust Fighter-- If this unit is a fighter this turn, it gets +1 to its armor value.
SA: Land Based
Let the discussion begin!!! |
G'day,
My take...
De Havilland Mosquito Mk VI Fighter-bomber
Fighter {though that makes it vunerable to Advanced fighters}
1943
Armour 5, Vital 8 {same as a Beufighter - but see below}
Main 4 {same as a Beufighter}
AA 6 {same as a Beufighter - but see below}
Bomb 7 {460kg light bomber}
ASW 2 {depth charge and/or rockets vs submarines}
SA:
Land based
Mission selection {Fighter [AA/Main] or Bomber [Bomb/ASW]}
Expert Straffer {as Beufighter - models rockets?}
Interceptor {better than a Beufighter against bombers}
Light Defensive armament {speed - makes it harder for fighters to get it than a Beufighter}
Points: 11?
Better than a Beufighter X {9pts} in most ways - except no Torpedo option...
Just my thoughts...
_________________
all the best
David |
|
| Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:29 am |
|
|
SOCCEROO FEVER
Posts: 6808
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| David-in-Sydney wrote: | | RAEVSKI wrote: | | The Beaufort was a significant plane for Australia. |
G'day all,
Was it? What a co-incident that I'd like to see a card for it....
ps. Can we re-visit the Boomerang? I've been reading "more than small heros" and a bit on the operation use of the Boomerang and I think that the Boomerang in the W@S game would be better modelling the TAC/R use than the "interceptor/escort" use.. mainly since it saw far more combat in the TAC/R role - and did very well in it... |
how would u want it changed?
it straffs well mg 3
it dogfights ok AA6
and it protects your beauforts as they let loose there torps!
_________________
|
|
| Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:31 pm |
|
|
Posts: 110
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| RAEVSKI wrote: | | David-in-Sydney wrote: | | ps. Can we re-visit the Boomerang? I've been reading "more than small heros" and a bit on the operation use of the Boomerang and I think that the Boomerang in the W@S game would be better modelling the TAC/R use than the "interceptor/escort" use.. mainly since it saw far more combat in the TAC/R role - and did very well in it... |
how would u want it changed?
it straffs well mg 3
it dogfights ok AA6
and it protects your beauforts as they let loose there torps! |
I'd concentrate on it's main use in WW2 which was as TAC/R
so...
Drop: Escort {they weren't used as escorts}
Add: Target designation - any bomb or main gun attack by another unit this turn against the straffing target of this unit gets an additional dice. {they would find and mark targets (including shipping) with tracer/smoke bombs for follow on aircraft (eg Corsairs) or artillery (both land and shore bombardment).}
Revist the Armour - 4 is way to low {compare it to the Buffalo}, 5 is more reasonable, but these aircraft were very tough and the pilots very dedicated and good at what they did - which was very low level flying for spotting, as target (to help spot enemy positions) and as straffers and target designators. While the aircraft that they were leading in would be fly at tree top, often the Boomerans would be below that - many returning with foliage.... would that rate as Expert Straffers?
_________________
all the best
David |
|
| Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:43 am |
|
|
Posts: 110
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Otto von Starkburg wrote: | | Quote: |
But it could be the equal of a Fw190... |
Not realy. That example is from 1945, not 1941 or 1943. Also, their are numerous qutoes that and Wikipedia is source (nor the choosen sources in wikipedia). As neural dream quoted: The Mosquito is not the Hellcat. |
G'day all,
I'm confused - what would the date difference be in W@S rating the same Mk* of aircraft between it's entry into service 1943 and the quoted combat in 1945?
*assuming that there was no significant changes within a mark... I would think that any significant change would be a different mk...
_________________
all the best
David |
|
| Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:20 am |
|
|
SOCCEROO FEVER
Posts: 6808
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| David-in-Sydney wrote: | | RAEVSKI wrote: | | David-in-Sydney wrote: | | ps. Can we re-visit the Boomerang? I've been reading "more than small heros" and a bit on the operation use of the Boomerang and I think that the Boomerang in the W@S game would be better modelling the TAC/R use than the "interceptor/escort" use.. mainly since it saw far more combat in the TAC/R role - and did very well in it... |
how would u want it changed?
it straffs well mg 3
it dogfights ok AA6
and it protects your beauforts as they let loose there torps! |
I'd concentrate on it's main use in WW2 which was as TAC/R
so...
Drop: Escort {they weren't used as escorts}
Add: Target designation - any bomb or main gun attack by another unit this turn against the straffing target of this unit gets an additional dice. {they would find and mark targets (including shipping) with tracer/smoke bombs for follow on aircraft (eg Corsairs) or artillery (both land and shore bombardment).}
Revist the Armour - 4 is way to low {compare it to the Buffalo}, 5 is more reasonable, but these aircraft were very tough and the pilots very dedicated and good at what they did - which was very low level flying for spotting, as target (to help spot enemy positions) and as straffers and target designators. While the aircraft that they were leading in would be fly at tree top, often the Boomerans would be below that - many returning with foliage.... would that rate as Expert Straffers? |
How many planes were shot down by boomerangs? 0
How many Booomerangs were shot down by zeros? -
armour 4 is based on Dogfighting ability and speed.
look i am an Aussie and proud of it and our history. maybe escort wasn't 100% correct. tac/r role might be hard to use and i really wonder if the plane would get used by anyone that way. Kityhawks seem to be the real stand up fighters in that theatre.
_________________
|
|
| Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:56 am |
|
|
Posts: 110
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
[quote="RAEVSKI"][quote="David-in-Sydney"] | RAEVSKI wrote: | | David-in-Sydney wrote: | <snip>
re: Boomerang
I'd concentrate on it's main use in WW2 which was as TAC/R
so...
Drop: Escort {they weren't used as escorts}
Add: Target designation - any bomb or main gun attack by another unit this turn against the straffing target of this unit gets an additional dice. {they would find and mark targets (including shipping) with tracer/smoke bombs for follow on aircraft (eg Corsairs) or artillery (both land and shore bombardment).}
Revist the Armour - 4 is way to low {compare it to the Buffalo}, 5 is more reasonable, but these aircraft were very tough and the pilots very dedicated and good at what they did - which was very low level flying for spotting, as target (to help spot enemy positions) and as straffers and target designators. While the aircraft that they were leading in would be fly at tree top, often the Boomerans would be below that - many returning with foliage.... would that rate as Expert Straffers? |
How many planes were shot down by boomerangs? 0
How many Booomerangs were shot down by zeros? -
armour 4 is based on Dogfighting ability and speed.
look i am an Aussie and proud of it and our history. maybe escort wasn't 100% correct. tac/r role might be hard to use and i really wonder if the plane would get used by anyone that way. Kityhawks seem to be the real stand up fighters in that theatre. |
I have a soft spot for the Boomerang - blame airfix!
But I'll try  not to let that influence me..
I agree that the Kittyhawk was the Australian fighter in that theatre in '42 and into '43.
I don't understand why in W@S dogfighting ability should be
reflected in armour, vital armour YES, armour NO...
In W@S it doesn't matter in air-to-air combat (not straffing) if your fighter gets aborted... as you still get to attack and your escort ability (or counter to interceptor) still counts... and after re-arming (if land based) your fighter is as good as new for the next turn. (That doesn't sound to me like getting trounced in a dogfight)
What matters is if your Vital is equalled or exceeded and your aircraft is destroyed - while it still gets to attack and your escort ability (or counter to interceptor) for that turn - every other turn it is unusable. (ie well and truely mauled/savaged in the dogfight)
Therefore the measure of dogfighting (not straffing) "defence" is the Vital Armour (inc SAs) which when combined with it's dogfighting "attack" AA dice (inc SAs) determines it's capabilities as an air superiority unit.
The armour value is a measure of it's ability to NOT be aborted in the face of AA (sea/land/air) when the unit is attacking ships/submarines/land.
A poor armour means the unit is more readily aborted.. and since we don't take into account in W@S skill/experience/motivation in any clear way.. then the aircraft that were good at attacking defended targets will have a higher armour than those that were not.
If armour 4 is based on dogfighting ability....
and the Boomerang never got into a dogfight....
then why rate it less than a Buffalo that got into a lot of dogfights in '41 & '42 in the Pacific and rarely won....
The Boomerang in service in NG/Solomons showed that it was good at attacking defended targets. That suggest a high armour (incl SAs).
As to the meaningfull (IMO) measure of dogfighting ability in W@S - vital armour - I have at home a comparison report done for the RAAF... from memory (will bring and edit Thursday)
Boomerang:-
Against the zero: Boomerang wins only in guns and manouverability (  ) - so the zero chould always choose to stay or go - the Boomerang would have to stay.
Against the Kittyhawk: Boomerang only wins in rate of climb - but only for a while - the Kittyhawk has better engine cooling
Against the Spitfire Mk V: Boomerang has no advantage
It is a pity that they did not compare it to a Buffalo - but since we stopped flying them in combat as soon as we could it may suggest that the Boomerang which entered service in '43 and was still in front line service in '45 was better in some ways....
So I would suggest that the vital armour of the Boomerang was less than the zero/kittyhawk/Spitfire but equal or possibly better than the Buffalo..
Now back to armour... the Boomerang excelled in very very low level missions - both straffing and recon of enemy combat units... and it performed those missions well and consistantly, if the armour is too low compared to other aircraft that operated in the same combat environment - then we may need to reconsider the armour and/or SAs.
So...
If I wanted to field a Boomerang unit - I would want it to be something useful in '43-'45 games, costed accordingly - but it would only be a dogfighter if my Kittyhawks/Spitfires/Beufighters/Mustangs/Corsairs (RNZAF) were no longer in play... and as such I would not expect it to win against a zero.. but I would be pleasantly surprised if it did... because it could have (see above)...
Hmmm... if we want to model that the Boomerang never shot down an enemy aircraft - How about we just don't give it an AA rating... a fighter with no AA rating - the point cost wouldn't be much...
_________________
all the best
David |
|
| Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:16 am |
|
|
AHF Gold-Rated Trader
Posts: 196
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
 
back to the item at hand: we could go with AA7, 4x20mm cannon and 4x .303 MG deserve better than AA6.
so far...
De Haviland Mosquito FB. Mark VI
Year: 1943
Points: 12 or 13
MG:3
AA:7
Bomb:9
DC:2
Armor:5 Vital Armor: 8 HP: 1
Mission Selection SA
Land Based SA
_________________
GTL + 32 (Old boards)
GTL + 5 (New Boards)
Winner of the First AAM land Olympics representing the U.K. (From Old Boards)
Polish Army review, Chinese Army review.
 |
|
| Wed Oct 28, 2009 6:10 pm |
|
|
Posts: 110
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Texas_Archer wrote: |
back to the item at hand: we could go with AA7, 4x20mm cannon and 4x .303 MG deserve better than AA6.
so far...
De Haviland Mosquito FB. Mark VI
Year: 1943
Points: 12 or 13
MG:3
AA:7
Bomb:9
DC:2
Armor:5 Vital Armor: 8 HP: 1
Mission Selection SA
Land Based SA |
sorry about that..
Looking good... but....
I'd still argue for MG 4 - same as Beufighter
I'd also argue for either 6/9/1 defence
or 5/8/1 defence and expert straffer
{again comparing it to the Beufighter}
ps. I'll start a seperate thread on the Boomerang - again sorry...
_________________
all the best
David |
|
| Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:35 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9280
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
MG 4 without doubt. About the AA 7 I'm not convinced yet. Maybe 6 + interceptor. Also, 6/9/1 looks fine, but no expert strafer.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:01 pm |
|
|
Posts: 543
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Could give it Expert Strafer 1 SA and reduce its armor by 1 instead of 2. Also the 6+ interceptor looks like a winner to me. Good eye ND.
_________________
Take a peek at my tradelist:
http://aaminis.myfastforum.org/about8921.html |
|
| Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:19 pm |
|
|
AHF Gold-Rated Trader
Posts: 196
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
cool on MG4
about AA6 + interceptor: seems ok i guess, but doable (ND, how much of a bribe for AA7?  )
looks almost done. So far:
De Haviland Mosquito
Points: around 13
Year: 1943
MG:4
AA:6
Bomb:9
DC:2
6/9/1
Land based SA--MUST
Mission Selection SA--MUST
Possible Interceptor SA
Possible expert Strafer SA
_________________
GTL + 32 (Old boards)
GTL + 5 (New Boards)
Winner of the First AAM land Olympics representing the U.K. (From Old Boards)
Polish Army review, Chinese Army review.
|
|
| Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:09 pm |
|
|
Posts: 110
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
G'day all,
I'm still on the side of AA7
It was better* Fighter than a Beufighter - both in defence (Vital) and Offence (AA) regardless of the aircraft it was up against (fighter/bomber)
*basicly because it was much faster.... zoom n boom...
At the end of the day... the Mozzie was taking over the roles performed by the Beu - because it was better... only exception - in the tropics where the Mozzie plywood glue failed due to humidity.
So make the Mozzie better than the Beu - but more expensive...
ps. off topic Boomerang - "Wirraeay, Boomerang & CA-15 in Australian service by Stewart Wilson ISBN 0 9587978 8 9 has comparative trial results for teh Boomerang - will post when I get it typed up - one day.
pps. this series is *very* good - and would make a great resource for discussions - I haven't got the Mozzie/Beu one - but remember it as being very detailed.
_________________
all the best
David |
|
| Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:05 am |
|
|
|
