Low Altitude P-47D Razorbacks vs Gustav

more good info, keep it coming.
Will try to put all the new info to use

Parsifal
Yes, hit# 61 vs a 6+1 = 7 hit
thing with that, you'll be off looking at charts. WTF is hit #61? (LOL) I have seen this in naval wargames
possible but looking for quick results

One option would be to somehow come up with values of say, the standard Bf109G-6 with Mg151/20 and 2x Mg 131.
just for now, say 3pts for the 20mm and a pt each for the 13mms giving 5 pts.
EASY would be a d6 for hit rg1: 1-5 hit rg 2: 1-3 ht Rge 3 roll of 1 hits (this for example, or use a d10 plus or minus to hit mods.
assume a hit
roll a d6, 1 = low effect, 6 = WOW! effect. You could go graduated effect or you could go average/bell curve/sine wave
law of averages would seem more correct
(sample to illustrate the point)
1. Minimal hits 33% of firepower. with a whopping FP of 5, that's around 1.66 points
2. Fair hits 66%
3-4 Average hits full value
5 superior hits 150% damage
6 excellent effect 200%

You would have to do something else for something with a Mk 108 due to moderate ROF but possible lethal effect

You'd want a critical roll with the first hits, even that Oscar with two 30 cal LMGs could score that golden BB. By placing rolls for critical hits at points intervals, you are likely denying lighter-armed planes frequent chances for Critical hits, correct by me. Meanwhile, something with 3-4 20mm would be getting lots of hit points in, ripping out chunks like a killer whale on its prey and getting lots of possible critical hits rolls.

If its of interest a long time ago (about 45 years ago) when I were but a wee lad of fourteen my brother and I came up with some rules to be used for aviation wargames.

Our hit points was based on four ranges Point Blank, short, medium and long with pints for each gun as follows

LMG 2 - 1 - 1 - 0
HMG 4 - 3 - 2 - 1
20mm 12 - 9 - 8 - 4
30mm 25 - 21 - 16 - 10

If your gun was in the nose and wasn't using interrupter gear then that weapon had an extra 20%

If your gun was in a turret you lost one range so an HMG was 3 - 2 - 1 - 0
If your gun was hand held then you lost two ranges so an HMG was 2 - 1 - 0 - 0

The damage an aircraft could take was based on its empty weight

When firing you threw three ten sided dice a black and a red gave a % number and a yellow the chance of scoring a hit.

Scoring a hit - we had a chart so from behind at point blank I think it was 1 - 8 was a hit, head on at med was I think a one or two was a hit, you get the idea

Damage was from the percentage number say 95 to 100% pilot hit, 90 to 95% engine was hit we had a different chart for front, side and rear attacks. If you had already received say 30% damage that was added to the percentage throw.

When you knew what had been hit a six sided dice was thrown and that gave the extent of the damage

We used to play these in a scout hall and often would have 25 to 30 aircraft taking part using airfix kits on stands.

It sounds a bit fiddly but each player had a card with the suitable information, also as with one throw you knew if you had hit and what had been hit. a second throw gave you the damage. It was actually quite quick One person was the umpire and his word was final.

It was far from perfect but considering our age and how difficult it was to get information with only a local library and pocket money we thought it was pretty good,

We also came up with a set of Naval rules that were really good.

We need to be honest for the folks here guys. These manual algorithms just dont compare to the capabilities of modern computers. I prefer them myself, because they are so "hands on" and you can get down and dirty with them, But you cant simlate with near the detail of a computer. You just cant. What i find annoying about modern computer simulations is that despite all that computing power to back up the designer, the designers of these computer sims are just plain lazy or just dont seem all that interested in trying to get their sim reasonably accurate. there are so many people out there that want to kid themselves that they are a better pilot than Hartmann and can shoot down 5 or 6 a/c in a single sortie. That kind of success is rare in the real world, and even though a sim is meant to be fun, Im a firm believer they should try to be at least historically faithful. , Surviving should be rare for most of us, and shooting down an opponent a "sometime" thing by a select few.

If sims were designed like that, I would play them, of course they would be a commercial disaster......

Thanks GLIDER!
quick resolution...awesome
not looking for WAR AND PEACE epic here, something realistic yet quick like you describe

Parsifal
Google "War Thunder Bf109G-14"
dude shoots down 2-4 planes a game

I played a lot of Air Force/Dauntless late 70s early 80s, old Battleline version, not the fancy Avalon Hill version
Hated the hit/firing tables. Nothing good to say about it except it was quick! I cannot recall shooting down a P-47, ever with a GUSTAV

The AH MUSTANGS! game is fair, somewhat generic, but the firing system sucks. Like most games you'll seldom shoot anybody down with one hit unless you're a top firepower plane

I would like something that the mechanics can be learned in a quick tutorial. Afterwards, teams are assigned, orders given, Team leaders fill in the blanks in their order cards. Probably a hex board for the larger movement then to the gaming table when planes are in contact or in the case of the Americans doing ground attack, in the area of their target. All too many games are played with the opponents facing each other, the objective is dead center...on the large map, would have several things that the Germans would be interested in protecting. Perhps a mission sheet for each with the division of forces listed balanced with plane, pilot, and fuel availability. Some missions would be a BYE for the Americans less any losses or damages to ground fire (vs the American roster).

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

No liquid cooled inline engine "likes hits"...

Click to expand...

That's true but what I meant was that according to some Brits, DB 601, being a direct injection engine, was more vulnerable to gun fire than a carburettor engine because there was a high pressure fuel line to every cylinder and so the risk of engine fire after being hit was higher.

Juha said:

That's true but what I meant was that according to some Brits, DB 601, being a direct injection engine, was more vulnerable to gun fire than a carburettor engine because there was a high pressure fuel line to every cylinder and so the risk of engine fire after being hit was higher.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree about that, to be honest, as the mechanical fuel injection system on the DB601 was no more flammable than the system on the BMW801 or any other injected engine.

The fuel delivery lines to each cylinder were not exceptionally large and while they did have higher pressure overall than the carbeurated system, did not produce catastrophic failure like hits to the fuel tanks could produce.

If the aircraft received hits to the fuel distributor, and or fuel pump, then the chance of fire was a great deal more than a severed cylinder delivery line.

IF we assume that the DB 601 is using around 120 gallons per hour or 2 gallons a minute then a single severed fuel injector line is good for about 10cc of fuel per second.
Or about 2 teaspoon fulls per second?

How much of a fire hazard this is I don't know. Possible yes, but probable?

The most vulnerable elements of in line engines were the cooling systems and radiators. Simple really, hole the coolant system and sooner or later (usually sooner) the engine will stop.
If Theo Nibel had hit a partridge flying a Fw 190 A-8 instead of a D-9 he wouldn't have been forced to make an emergency landing at all.
Cheers
Steve

Shortround6 said:

IF we assume that the DB 601 is using around 120 gallons per hour or 2 gallons a minute then a single severed fuel injector line is good for about 10cc of fuel per second.
Or about 2 teaspoon fulls per second?

How much of a fire hazard this is I don't know. Possible yes, but probable?

Click to expand...

As I wrote, it was a claims of some Brits and so maybe biased but as long as the engine was running the fuel was leaking.

stona said:

The most vulnerable elements of in line engines were the cooling systems and radiators. Simple really, hole the coolant system and sooner or later (usually sooner) the engine will stop.
If Theo Nibel had hit a partridge flying a Fw 190 A-8 instead of a D-9 he wouldn't have been forced to make an emergency landing at all.
Cheers
Steve

Click to expand...

That is of course true and e.g. Spit, 109 and P-51 had long cooling fluid lines from engine to radiator(s), P-40, Typhoon/Tempest and 190D short. Were 109s shallower but wider radiators more vulnerable than Spit's deeper but narrower radiator(s). IMHO yes but many 109s had the possibility to shut off the damaged radiator, which IMHO more than off-set the possible greater vulnerability.

yes, critical hits on cooling and hits on oil system, chances of fire
IIRC, the low round count kill vs an IL2 was to take out the oil cooler

be careful George, this is where a fine understanding of the material is needed. IL-2s were, by the accounts of the LW itself, tough nuts to crack, yet the reality is they did suffer exceptionally heavy casualties.

Some of that was due to the tactics, some the training and proficiency of the soviet aircrews. Average pilot training for Soviet aircrews is thought to have dropped to about 20 hours by the time of Kursk, flying against guys with thousands of hours of flying time. but whereas, until Stalingrad, the VVS had no appreciable effect on the ground battle, after Stalingrad, and with ever increasing tempo, the Soviets gradually got to dominate the critical parts of the sky where they needed such dominance. they didn't do that by gaining air superiority.....the LW managed to retain air superiority (in a technical sense at least) almost until the end. That's reflected in the relative loss rates......but despite this the VVS was the dominant force over the battlefield from kursk onward. its a long story, but essentially shooting down LW aircraft was secondary. primary function of the VVS, with almost no deviation was to get bombers over the battlefield and dropping that ordinance onto the Heers positions at just the right moment. the ideal air operation for the Soviets had nothing to do with mixing it with the LW. VVS fighters were there to keep the Germans off their bombers mostly. if the bombers could bomb just as the ground assault was hitting the german lines, forcing the germans to either keep their heads down or disperse to cover, the VVS would consider its job well done. and on the eastern front this approach worked pretty well. by not thinking about grandiose schemes to beat the worlds most expert airforce in the air battle the Russians actually tore the heart out of that force anyway. more LW aircraft, and more LW personnel, including pilots, were lost to being overrun by Soviet ground forces than any battle in the air. The east front became this running sore for the LW that it could no longer control, and which was costing it vast amounts of its resources for no real gain .

While I agree Shortround's observation "two teaspoons per second" it translates to 2 tsp/sec per second under a closed hood..

WOW, three years and two months later.....

Life has thrown me a few serious curve balls. I'll omit the details at this juncture. Let me say I have been quite busy.

On the fun side of things, I have been painting WW2 stuff in 15mm and 28mm, Bolt Action and more recently Chain of Command miniatures games. I have actually done some gaming too. I made "the mistake" and picked-up the Osprey "GUSTAV vs Thunderbolt" book. Hmmmm. This broke my "lock" on ground combat.... This started me down the slippery slope of that LOW ALTITUDE AIR BATTLE OVER NORMANDY I started so long ago. I have several of my air game ideas on some of the old computers here. I also typed up some performance data the other day and hope to do a mash-up of all that I have accumulated.

Comparing speeds, climbs, pretty basic.
Comparing turning, maneuvering, more complex.
Also adding the FW190A6/7/8 into the fray. Performance/dogfighting stories vary. Seems turning was not great? I know roll rate was good. Power good too at these altitudes. Climb? Better than the P-47 but far from spirited.
Of course the P-51B/C may appear. Not known as a dog fighter, different sources say different things. How to even get comparative performance values for a limited number of planes does become a challenge. The initial set looks like:
Bf109G-6
Bf109G-14
Fw190A 6/7/8
P-47D (mid versions)
P-47D (later versions)
P-51B/C
P-38....not a priority at this time until I get the others done
Of course, the RAF will be added and some target types, 2 and 4-engine.
Hexes are easy yet they become a challenge with the differences between the plane types are not great. Perhaps a plain gaming mat without hexes.

My new rules version, I am using perf at Deck, 5000ft, 10,000ft as we are still talking IXth TAAF supporting the drive across Normandy. By keeping this a low fight, the fight can better be managed and hopefully more authentic.
I can do single missions or a mini campaign where survival is the goal. FWIW, the AAA gunners that survive can become quite deadly. The Americans will have to get bombs on target, strafe, look out for the AAA and keep a weather eye open for the LW.

the firepower, looking at things again.
1 d6 .50 cal (trying to figure out what to do re 13mm but I keep also wanting to give it a 1 rating)
3 d6 for 20mm
this gives a typical Gustav 5 d6 firepower

8x d6 for the P-47 is 8 d6 firepower
this roughly resembles previous discussion about the Jug having 2x the FP of a Gustav.

the Bf109G-14, some 800+ of 2000+ built had the /U4 with the engine gun being the Mk108.
2x d6 for the 13mm
9x d6 for the Mk108. (naturally shorter range bands than some weapons, different dice color for the 30mm)
this gives this version of the Gustav 11 d6 firepower.

The Fw190A7/A8 is 14 d6

interestingly, I saw the Tony Williams airplane gun evaluation. My numbers seem to be in the ball park.

All of these values reflect hit strength at close range. Mid and Long range less rounds would hit so less FP would be applied


Sure, lots can be said about firing up the computer and hopping onto a Fighter Sim. Quick gratification. However, play vs AI or even Internet opponents, you are not with your flight or squadron doing stuff. Also your pals are not their socializing, having a beverage, etc on computers as they would be at a home or game shop. I grew up hanging out around the family sand table out in the garage.


NOT looking to get into a rivet-counting affair, but not some half-cocked inaccurate kid game either!
Needs to be a balance of accuracy and playability. Players may improve in a campaign or generate some pilots for a Saturday evening pick-up game. Where an ACE is called for, they will have a few of the special abilities offered. The BETTER the pilot, the more skills he will have. Conversely, an AVERAGE pilot may have one skill, ROOKIE pilots will have no skills and likely a shooting penalty that decreases with combat experience.