Battle of the Crimea

Being a Russian company, I am really surprised ED hasn't focused more of the WW2 stuff on Russian equipment and operations. With the addition of a Stuka, an Il2 and a couple of choice Russian birds, the current Black Sea map could be reborn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_campaigns_%281941%E2%80%9344%29

While the Leading competitor is focused on Stalingrad, ED already has a great basis for the replay of a little talked about front during WW2. Just a thought. -Woogey

Being a Russian company, I am really surprised ED hasn't focused more of the WW2 stuff on Russian equipment and operations. With the addition of a Stuka, an Il2 and a couple of choice Russian birds, the current Black Sea map could be reborn.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_campaigns_%281941%E2%80%9344%29

 

While the Leading competitor is focused on Stalingrad, ED already has a great basis for the replay of a little talked about front during WW2. Just a thought. -Woogey

to be honest, with the map you are right. But on the other side, i think Il2's next scenario will already be Crimea/Kuban. I would appreciate, if ED would stick to the late war, and include some end war russian planes. Maybe La7, Tu2, Yak3P, and set up some historic-fictional battles on the black sea or normandy map against the german end war planes (maybe a berlin map later).

Good thing would be, that alongside the Mig15, P51, Bearcat and Sabre you would have a pretty decent and historical accurate Korea setup, because all those russian planes mentioned before were used there as well.

We haven't had a late-war ETO title since CFS3, so I'm glad ED isn't redoing Il-2. My favorite would be MTO, but I'm happy enough with what we have so far.

I'm not necessarily partial to the Il2. It is just a well known Russian EXAMPLE. The point I tried to convey; was that WW2 DID happen on this existing Black Sea map. I am surprised that the WW2 Roadmap doesn't include more Russian equipment, so that they could utilize the existing work in a new way. As a side benefit, more people get to learn about these important battles. -Woog

^^well maybe in future we will get russian ww2 planes and maps.

currently though im also very happy that ED does not go the same route as the competitor you are speaking about but starts with a western europe late war theater.really happy here that wags asked for british airfield details.also im really happy that VEAO is doing an africa map.now we need a late war central europe map(austrian alps please :) ) and im more than happy..

We haven't had a late-war ETO title since CFS3, so I'm glad ED isn't redoing Il-2. My favorite would be MTO, but I'm happy enough with what we have so far.

Il2 1946 had a ton a late war content from all theaters including all the aircraft in DCS 1944. DCS 1944 is basically just a modern version of what il2 offered in it's hey day including the Normandy map. It's the North Africa / MTO which has always been ignored. I was a little disappointed with the idea of DCS1944 for that very reason that it's already been done and without the corresponding ground and air units it would be a little hollow, given it was such a one sided fight when it comes to fighter on fighter combat. A 1942 or 43 ETO theme would have been more varied or better a 42/43 MTO. But gotta support these guys anyway!

^^well, the normandy map they are creating can be used for pretty much all scenarios during the whole period of ww2 fortunately...

Il2 1946 had a ton a late war content from all theaters including all the aircraft in DCS 1944. DCS 1944 is basically just a modern version of what il2 offered in it's hey day including the Normandy map.

To me the ETO content in Il-2 was second or third string compared to the other theaters.

And the Normandy map for DCS is no longer just a Normandy map.:thumbup:

And the Normandy map for DCS is no longer just a Normandy map.:thumbup:

^^this.this will go a long way, and was a very clever decision.

given it was such a one sided fight when it comes to fighter on fighter combat.

Given fighter on fighter engagements with equally trained pilots, there was nothing one sided about it in 1944. You can see that in 8 fold increase in Allied fighter losses in air to air combat especially when you understand that increase was due to a very small percentage of Luftwaffe pilots under some overwhelming enemy numerical superiority.

In order for the average Luftwaffe fighter pilot to gain the flying experience of the newly appointed USAAF fighter pilot without a single operational sortie under his belt, the newly minted Luftwaffe pilot had to survive some 40(+) missions!! Of course, the average pilot did not survive his first six for either side, much less 40.

It has just never been properly done because most "games" have accounted for the Luftwaffe defeat in terms of aircraft performance. To me, 1944 is the most pivotal year in the air war on the Western Front. It is far richer than the Battle of Britain for the combat flight sim community.

Maybe I'm missing something here but if the current map should be reborn as a WW2 Crimea scenario, shouldn't it show the western part of the Black Sea instead of the eastern and include countries like Moldova and Romania?

In the ETO American fighters flew 57,875 combat hours in 1943 and lost 178 a/c, to all causes.

In the ETO American fighters flew 1,129,752 combat hours in 1944 and lost 3,763 a/c, to all causes.

In 1943, A2A losses accounted for 91% of the losses. In 1944, A2A losses accounted for 34% of the losses.

The number of combat hours flown increased 20 fold from 1943 to 1944. It is easy to see why A2A losses increased in 1944.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a542518.pdf

The graphs in a previous post come from,

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/AAF-Luftwaffe-Fwd.html

as does this one

In the ETO American fighters flew 57,875 combat hours in 1943 and lost 178 a/c, to all causes.

 

In the ETO American fighters flew 1,129,752 combat hours in 1944 and lost 3,763 a/c, to all causes.

 

In 1943, A2A losses accounted for 91% of the losses. In 1944, A2A losses accounted for 34% of the losses.

 

The number of combat hours flown increased 20 fold from 1943 to 1944. It is easy to see why A2A losses increased in 1944.

 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a542518.pdf

 

The graphs in a previous post come from,

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/AAF-Luftwaffe-Fwd.html

 

as does this one

 

In 1943 the size of the forces was nearly equal but in 1944, the Luftwaffe fighter response was a quarter of the size of the USAAf escorting fighters. It is no wonder the percentage loss went down for the USAAF. They fielded thousands of aircraft and such an increase means you can absorb the losses.

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Equivalent_Airspeed

The loss RATE increased from 3.5% to 22%. In other words, a USAAF fighter pilot had a much larger chance of dying in air to air combat in 1944 than in 1943.

Given fighter on fighter engagements with equally trained pilots, there was nothing one sided about it in 1944. You can see that in 8 fold increase in Allied fighter losses in air to air combat especially when you understand that increase was due to a very small percentage of Luftwaffe pilots under some overwhelming enemy numerical superiority...

:huh: This has nothing to do with the thread, which is discussing the Battle of the Crimea and the maps being used by DCS.

Maybe I'm missing something here but if the current map should be reborn as a WW2 Crimea scenario, shouldn't it show the western part of the Black Sea instead of the eastern and include countries like Moldova and Romania?

Something like this?

...With the addition of a Stuka, an Il2 and a couple of choice Russian birds, the current Black Sea map could be reborn.

How is this the case if buildings are modern, roads are modern, railroads are modern as well?

Airports are nothing like they looked like in WW2.

Maybe I'm missing something here but if the current map should be reborn as a WW2 Crimea scenario, shouldn't it show the western part of the Black Sea instead of the eastern and include countries like Moldova and Romania?

Hmm, such map would provide a good historical excuse to use both Western Allied (15th AAF, Ploesti raid etc.) and Soviet and Axis/Luftwaffe planeset for 1944...

We could have even semi-historical Axis vs Axis (i.e. Rumanian changing of sides resulted in 109 vs 109 combats) and Soviet vs Allied servers (blue on blue, or rather blue on red incidents between VVS and 15th AAF).

Good idea Kurfürst. The actions against the Romanian oil fields offers a unique opportunity to blend both east and west.

How is this the case if buildings are modern, roads are modern, railroads are modern as well?

Airports are nothing like they looked like in WW2.

This would not make much difference to me. The WWII units themselves are much more important, and I can make do without time-period scenery.

I think part of this is making do with what's available. A time accurate WWII map would be great, but it would take additional time to develop. That's not a problem for a pre-existing map.

Also, I say is 10 polygon buildings were good enough in 1980's sims, then a non-time correct map isn't enough to break a modern sim. As far as I know, the map isn't time correct to any period as is anyway.

Ai bombers, change the airports a little, and the correct ground units is more important imho. Do not waste time making grass and ensuring all the buildings are exactly as they were in 1944.

High fidelity aircraft, flight models, damage models, and a good single player dynamic campaign are more important than things on a map.

I would gladly pay 50 USD a plane for it.