Airfield Attacks

[Ratatat 0]

Having been away from OFF for quite a while I decided to fire it up and have a go. Much to my dismay the first mission handed to my new Fokker Dr.1 pilot was an airfield attack. Ho-hum, I thought. I recall these missions as rather a dull, waste of my pilot's time and in the past allowed myself to be distracted by the odd speck flying on the horizon. But this time I did my duty and kept to the mission ( that darn speck was faster than me ).

Alright, here comes the airfield. I stifled a yawn, throttled up, and dove down - lining up on a menacing truck. I waited until it loomed large in my sights. I held down the trigger and...KABOOM! Holy @#$%!

The truck disappeared in an almighty explosion and I got a screen full of cloud and dirt! I hooted with glee as I flew out of the whirling debris, barely missing a poorly located hanger.

I don't remember that happening before! I then proceeded on an unholy path of destruction. No vehicle was safe from my blazing twin machine guns. Black smoke soon blanketed the enemy airfield as anything with wheels burned to the ground.

Hey! Are those little soldiers down there taking pot shots at me? Angry bullets whipped and whined past my triplane. This is great! Brave little men they were. Brave little men.

 

Uh-oh. I realized that in my feverish excitement I had exhausted every last round I had for my guns! With a foolish grin I slunk back to base at tree top level, hoping and praying not to be noticed by the airfields owners. A lesson learned. Next time I bring more ammo!

[Olham 164]

Try railyard attacks also! And hit all the many chests and wooden boxes piled there - many contain explosives!

Edited November 13, 2010 by Olham

[Hasse Wind 46]

Do yourself a favour and fly an airfield attack mission with a real bomber sometimes. The DFW C.V carries 150 kilos of bombs and also has a bombsight so you don't have to fly too low when bombing. It's very satisfying to drop the bombs and watch them fall down and explode in the bomb view (F9 by default). If you aim well, you can completely devastate the hangars and buildings, especially if there are several bombers attacking.

[Ratatat 0]

I'll have to enlist a new pilot and give the bombers a try. Sounds very cool Hasse Wind. Right now my Alb. DV pilot "Helmut von Stahlhelm" has his hands full with nasty SPADs. They're extremely tough! They outrun me and I can hardly keep with them in a turn! I barely survived my last encounter. We outnumbered a flight of SPADs 2:1. It was 6 of us on 3 of them. I managed to down 1 SPAD after a vicious fight through lucky sniping. My plane was riddled with holes and the engine wasn't sounding good at all. When I looked around I was alone with only two other planes in the sky. They were both SPADs!!! Our entire flight was gone except for me! I hightailed it out of there right quick!

How did the Albatross pilots deal with these enemy machines in real life without getting slaughtered???

[Javito1986 14]

Impressive isn't it? I landed at an airfield while it was getting bombed earlier today, quite a (dangerous) light show.

 

Do watch out for ground fire though. Twice now, once on an airfield and once over a railyard, I've been shredded by a "lucky" flak hit. One of them killed me in midair, the other sent me on a free trip to the ground in a wingless kite.

[Olham 164]

Ratatat: How did the Albatross pilots deal with these enemy machines in real life without getting slaughtered???

 

When the Romans fought the Germans, they were impressed by their fearlessness. They often brought lions with them

to frighten the Germans. But the Germans did not know lions, and beat them dead as big dogs.

When I am alone with two SPAD and enough ammunition, my major problem is, that I won't have witnesses for 2 kills.

Mmuahahahahahahaaaa!!!!!!!

Edited November 14, 2010 by Olham

[Pips 5]

[/i]When the Romans fought the Germans, they were impressed by their fearlessness. They often brought lions with themto frighten the Germans. But the Germans did not know lions, and beat them dead as big dogs.[/i]

 

Geez! All I can say is the Germans must have had bloody huge dogs.

Edited November 14, 2010 by Pips

[Goodvibes 0]

G'day,

 

 

Please excuse any ignorance on my part and the number of questions for now. If any of this is already in the campaign documentation, then my appologies. Am yet to receive BH&H to guage this for myself, so am putting this into an SEOW parlance and perspective which I'm readily accustomed to. Am actually someone who normally prefers ground attack over fighters missions so am somewhat curious about this topic and its implications in a campaign environment. Some questions:

 

1. Does the destruction of vehicles, airframes and artillery have any material affect upon the campaign apart from collecting points or racking up ground kills?

2. If I destroy a number of aircraft based at or assigned to a particular airfield, will the same squadron aircraft numbers, operations and seviciability be reduced till replacements arrive?

3. Does the campaign track numbers of aircraft assigned to airfields and are those aircraft not on sorties parked at the airfields?

4. If I destroy an AAA artillery piece at an airfield, will the base defences be reduced till replacements arrive?

5. Does the destruction of vehicles in the enemies logistic tail have any short term repercussions on the campaign? That is, are supply and logistics modelled in the campaign?

6. Can the program keep a record of the supply level at each airfield, which in turn can be resupplied or reduced through subsequent mission sorties?

 

Yes I know these factors won't change the overall result of the war, but am always interested in the repercussions of destroying enemy ground targets. Sorry if asking too many questions on this and certainly don't want to interfere with any work in this area if inconveinient.

 

 

Regards,

Vibes

[Olham 164]

As far as I know, successfully accomplished missions make faster promotions for the pilot(s),

whilst additional deeds like shooting down enemy craft rather result in medals.

But nothing you do will hamper the enemy for only a day, in any way.

Don't let that disappoint you. There is no "winning the war single handedly".

But you will become part of your squadron or Jasta, doing your duties - just "one of the boys".

 

If you like ground attacks, you can either bomb the targets from higher altitude with bombers,

or pick an aircraft like the DH-5. Also, S.E.5a and Camels can carry small bombs.

German side, you only find fighters OR bombers - no "Schlachtflieger" (battle flyer) yet,

which could bomb AND fight other aircraft. Although maybe the Hannover is such a craft -

Hasse Wind should know better.

German fighters hardly ever crossed the lines - they operated mostly defensive.

Edited November 14, 2010 by Olham

[shredward 12]

How did the Albatross pilots deal with these enemy machines in real life without getting slaughtered???

 

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft-articles/31781-defeat-design.html#content_start

 

Cheers,

shredward

Edited November 14, 2010 by shredward

[Javito1986 14]

How does one go about consistently accomplishing his missions? I never see the "goal succeeded" message because I -always- run into opposition on the way to the target, fight it out, and after that it's usually time to go home because you're damaged/low on ammo/tired/etc.

[Olham 164]

As UncleAl says - first you need to avoid enemy contact. If you can do that, you do your mission task.

If it's a ground attack, just strafe your target at least once, then return home.

On your way back, you may fight. Important is: you need to fly over the last waypoint before your field,

to get the message "All mission objectives accomplished" or similar.

[Goodvibes 0]

How did the Albatross pilots deal with these enemy machines in real life without getting slaughtered???

 

As mentioned earlier, the Imperial German Air Service fought a largely defensive battle. Quick climbing interceptors were highly desired. Sometimes they'd concentrate their Jasta's for an offensive and there was always an enivitable Allied response. A good general picks the battles he needs to fight. Don't fight battles that you can avoid and winning without a battle is the sweetest victory of all. On the last, captains of antiquity, such as Alexander, Caesar and Hannibal were past masters in this field. Essentially, the machines that were the most valuable and did the most damage to the German Army were the two seaters. These are the bombers, the recon and the artillery spotters. Fighters were there to protect them or shoot them down. An artillery piece directed by a spotter was a very effective weapon in eliminating key enemy artillery pieces, tanks, infantry concentrations, supplies and strongpoints in the opposing line. An afternoons work of spotting for the guns could mean all the difference to the sucess or failure of a ground offensive. Likewise, recon and bombing had critical roles. It was these machines which were often the directed focus of Abartri attacks, not the Spads, Camels or SE5a's. The standard operational policy of the IGAS was to go after the two seaters and avoid the enemy fighters. Was not profitable to do anything else. What do you think Dowding and Park of Fighter Command were doing two decades later?

 

Focussing upon the Albatross series of fighters. Yes the single spar and sequisiplane layout from the D.III onwards compromised the types extended diving abilites. However, it did improve the Albatrosses manuverability and the all important climbing abilities over the previous models. And the Albatross did have some other things going for it. First was its firepower. At the time, it was greater than the earlier Sopwiths and Spads (till the Camel & XIII) and the SE5a. Second was its stationary inline engine. This could be good and bad. A stationary inline engine offered a good, stable gun platform and the engine was more efficient and performed better at altitude than the air aspirated rotoraries. Nor was there too much fiddling around to be done with the Mercedes engine. As an owner of ROF, I personally believe that some of this is modelled correctly whilst am dubious about the altitude performances of the rotaries in this sim. Have yet to receive OFF, but suspect you guys have probably got the balance right if your running campaigns with the program. Putting things into an operational aspect or theatre is always the best way to find these things out. So roughly speaking, I see the Albatross fighters as a compromise. Their overall speed was down on opposing SE5a's and Spads. At height its speed would have been superior to rotary engined fighters and probably on par with them at lower altitudes. Am sure that Albatross drivers could have chosen when and where to fight Pups or Camels and at times would have had the performance to cut and run. I also suspect that the sequisiplane arrangement gave the Albatross an edge in manuverablity over the SE5a and Spad, but this could in no way match the turn gained from the torque of a rotary engined fighter. Also, rotary engines need castor oit and this was a very scarce commodity in Germany. Is one of the reasons why the Germans concentrated on building inline engines. All this, coupled with the heavy armament, made the Albatross a formidable fighter. Yes, at lower altitudes it would have had a hard time against the Camel and could never match the Spad or SE5a in diving and breakaway combat ability. Overall, I think it was a good all rounder whose flight performances (was passed in diving ability) were first matched by the Mercedes engined Fokker D.VII and eventually surpassed by the same fighter with the BMW engine.

 

All said above, please remember that this is just an opinion and is a possible explaination as to why the Albatross continued in service till the last day of the war.

 

 

Regards,

Vibes

[Olham 164]

A British documentary recently concluded, that Germany lost the first world war due to the simple fact,

that it could not keep up over years, to bring new fresh troops and enough new material to the front.

 

Another simple reason why the Albatros was kept, could have been the production capabilities.

The Messerschmidt Bf 109 for example was produced in variations throughout the whole second world war,

although it was not a top class fighter anymore after, maybe, version G6.

But the production lines were there, and they could build the requested numbers.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Olham

[Goodvibes 0]

G'day,

 

Yes, I do think the Albatros was kept in production longer than it should have been. I think this was largely due to its use of an inline engines and the need for something until the Fokker D.VII's were available in sufficient numbers. Nor was the Pfalz D.III & D.IIIa considered a sufficient replacement. Review of prewar Grand Prix racecar engine development clearly indicates the German domininance and preference for inline engines. The French opted for rotary engines before WWI, but switched to the Spad V series midway through the war as the torque from larger rotary engined fighters made them only suitable for the experts and positively lethal to the novice flyer. In WW2 the Bf-109 was still a very capable fighter till the end of the war. When optimised for a strictly fighter role, variants such as the G-10 variant, were certainly a match for any of the American, British and Russian opposition. The problem for the Nazis was that the USAAF was continually sending over masses of heavilly armed bombers with strong fighter escorts at well over 20,000ft. The Bf-109's needed to carry more heavy cannons to knock down bombers. A Bf-109 with wing gondalas (cannonboat) was not at its best for a "fighter on fighter" engagement and had a much degraded performance. This is what won the air battle of attrition over the Reich. Also the Bf-109 had good altitude performance as did the Mustang and Thunderbolt. The performance of the FW-190 Anton series which had the heavy cannons, fell away at over 20,000 ft . Actually many short nosed Focke Wulfs were used on the eastern front and largely replaced the Ju-87 Stuka in the ground attack role. It was the T-34 that was killed the Wehrmacht and they were totally overwhelmed by the mass of Russian armour. In some ways it was a repeat of WWI. New German designs such as the FW-190 Dora, Me-262 and others comming online, but it was always too little and too late.

 

Regards,

Vibes

[Olham 164]

Goodvibes, the whole thing can be cut short simply by looking at the size of Germany, and it's resources.

On the field of inventions of technology, Germany was very advanced.

But without the resources of raw materials (for example oil/petrol) and personnel, the wars were simply

too big for a small country as it is.

[Goodvibes 0]

Goodvibes, the whole thing can be cut short simply by looking at the size of Germany, and it's resources.

On the field of inventions of technology, Germany was very advanced.

But without the resources of raw materials (for example oil/petrol) and personnel, the wars were simply

too big for a small country as it is.

 

Yes, in total agreement with you on this and is never any argument on this. The blockade of the Central Powers in WWI and its economic consequences by 1918, combined with the entry of the USA into this war, spelt their approaching doom. The black day of the German Army during 1918 and growing riots clearly indicated the course which the war would follow, had it continued longer. Hindsight is a good thing to have but not always possessed. Some, like the Nazis incorrectly argued that the German Army was not decisively defeated and that other factors were responsible for losing the war. Then there are those, such as US Army General Perishing who insisted that the Allies give no quarter and march onto Berlin to ensure that there wouldn't be a repeat of WWI. Economically, Germany was probably at its height in the decade just prior to WWI. After this war, the industrialisation of Russia and the USA took on even greater significance and this was the decisive factor in the return bout. Even with the whole of Europe under Nazi yoke, the Germans were well past their peak and totally overmatched by the Allies. Look at aircraft, artillery, tanks, munitions, supplies, ships or numbers of anything else produced and this will clearly indicate the way WW2 was going to go in the longrun. Anyway, it seems that we've strayed off the subject of airfield attacks and agree that its best that we end this here.

 

Regards,

Vibes

[Javito1986 14]

Yes, in total agreement with you on this and is never any argument on this. The blockade of the Central Powers in WWI and its economic consequences by 1918, combined with the entry of the USA into this war, spelt their approaching doom. The black day of the German Army during 1918 and growing riots clearly indicated the course which the war would follow, had it continued longer. Hindsight is a good thing to have but not always possessed. Some, like the Nazis incorrectly argued that the German Army was not decisively defeated and that other factors were responsible for losing the war. Then there are those, such as US Army General Perishing who insisted that the Allies give no quarter and march onto Berlin to ensure that there wouldn't be a repeat of WWI. Economically, Germany was probably at its height in the decade just prior to WWI. After this war, the industrialisation of Russia and the USA took on even greater significance and this was the decisive factor in the return bout. Even with the whole of Europe under Nazi yoke, the Germans were well past their peak and totally overmatched by the Allies. Look at aircraft, artillery, tanks, munitions, supplies, ships or numbers of anything else produced and this will clearly indicate the way WW2 was going to go in the longrun. Anyway, it seems that we've strayed off the subject of airfield attacks and agree that its best that we end this here.

 

Regards,

Vibes

 

 

 

 

I do admit that I've always found it curious that Germany accepted Versailles while still holding enemy territory. It just seems like they could have held on to negotiate more reasonable terms. Yes I know things were going horribly on the domestic front and military reversals were numerous... but Versailles was a bit of a crock and I've never understood why they agreed to it.