PDA

View Full Version : Monte Cassino 1944 - Pictures



Kat
16-01-2007, 23:47
Ok here's what I have so far. I fully know this map may get replaced by an italian map with 4.08 but till then Gives us something interesting.

I've made this a 'This is perhaps how it should have been done' Scenario. In fact if Firelok agrees I will put mixed Red and Blue lorries in the Monastory it's self making it a target that penalises you for hitting it.

"Following the failure of the Americans to break through at Monte Cassino it's now the turn of British and Commonwealth forces. The RAF, Using their Forward Air Controllers and a Cab Rank System are hitting pin point German defensive forces around Monte Cassino and in the Valley below. Meanwhile the Luftwaffe's Jabo 190's and Ju87D's are doing their best to hit the British built up and counter artillery batteries."



Luftwaffe
[Jabo Base 190's are Jabo only]
Bf-109G-6 (no gunpods)
Bf-109G-6_Late (no gunpods)
Fw-190A-4 (Jabo only)
Fw-190A-5 (Jabo only)
MC-205_I
MC-205_III
Bf-109G-2 (Limited to 20, the G-6 allows people to quickly change when they run out - I've guessed at 3-4 spawn points - no gunpods)
Bf-109G-6

Allies
[RAF/Italian Base]
HurricaneMkIIb (Default restricted)
HurricaneMkIIc
MosquitoFBMkVI
SeafireIII (Default restricted)
SpitfireMkVIIICLP
SpitfireMkIXc (HAD to put this in, VIII can't carry bombs - default won't be available - Default restricted)
MC-205_I

http://www.bananaz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Montec7.jpg

German encampments below the Monastary

http://www.bananaz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Montec1.jpg

http://www.bananaz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Montec2.jpg

German Artillery Battalion just outside the Monastory.

http://www.bananaz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Montec3.jpg

Kat
16-01-2007, 23:47
Monte Cassino - Minimal targets inside - only those you see in teh courtyard.

http://www.bananaz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Montec4.jpg

British base and artillary battery.
http://www.bananaz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Montec5.jpg

http://www.bananaz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Montec6.jpg

Zorin
16-01-2007, 23:58
Flight distances are a complete no go. No one will fly through four-five grids to reach the targets and be shot down by a Spit VIII or Fw190.

Limiting the G2 in general won't do as well. And giving reds airstart for P51 and P38 will render blues always in a disadvantage being jumped by planes coming down from 6+ km.

Kat
17-01-2007, 00:05
Flight distances are a complete no go. No one will fly through four-five grids to reach the targets and be shot down by a Spit VIII or Fw190.

Limiting the G2 in general won't do as well. And giving reds airstart for P51 and P38 will render blues always in a disadvantage being jumped by planes coming down from 6+ km.
Your allways so darn negative m8 :P

G6 WAS the MAIN Axis fighter in the theatre. I've added SOME G-2's but don't want 17 G-2's in the air.

To cover the axis targets the fighters fly only THREE squares. I can (if asked) drop the Americans on another test airstrip but I think your being overcritical, especially as the 190's will be limited to bombs and spits are unlikely to meet up with the B25's (not to mention the fact the spits reach the area after the 109's ).

The Axis bomber run IS a little long HOWEVER as it's primarally intended to be a level bomb run that shouldn't be a problem as you need time to get up to altitude etc. I could however limit attacks to Jabo only but it just gives the axis some flexibility.


Also don't forget there are PLENTY of maps where the allies have the disadvantage.

Anywhere we have to rely heavily on the Mk1 Hurricane for instance.

Zorin
17-01-2007, 00:29
Your allways so darn negative m8 :P

G6 WAS the MAIN Axis fighter in the theatre. I've added SOME G-2's but don't want 17 G-2's in the air.

To cover the axis targets the fighters fly only THREE squares. I can (if asked) drop the Americans on another test airstrip but I think your being overcritical, especially as the 190's will be limited to bombs and spits are unlikely to meet up with the B25's (not to mention the fact the spits reach the area after the 109's ).

The Axis bomber run IS a little long HOWEVER as it's primarally intended to be a level bomb run that shouldn't be a problem as you need time to get up to altitude etc. I could however limit attacks to Jabo only but it just gives the axis some flexibility.


Also don't forget there are PLENTY of maps where the allies have the disadvantage.

Anywhere we have to rely heavily on the Mk1 Hurricane for instance.

I'm not negative, I'm sharing the knowledge I gained through lots of discussions and failures which I simply want to save you from. ;)

1. You put the G6AS in, unlimited, no one will care for the G2 anymore .
2. After the Fw190 dropped its bomb, it is back to its interceptor role.
3. Trust me, bomber pilots (except the few hardcore ones we have) will maybe make one run on this map but after the frustration of a 20 minute flight and a pk near the target, swap to fighters.
4. You need the Fw190 F8 of SG4.

Algorex
17-01-2007, 00:33
JU-87G and no P-47D-22?






Also i noticed some reverse lend-lease, GAZs and ZILs used by the brits. ;)

Kat
17-01-2007, 00:40
I'm not negative, I'm sharing the knowledge I gained through lots of discussions and failures which I simply want to save you from. ;)

1. You put the G6AS in, unlimited, no one will care for the G2 anymore .
2. After the Fw190 dropped its bomb, it is back to its interceptor role.
3. Trust me, bomber pilots (except the few hardcore ones we have) will maybe make one run on this map but after the frustration of a 20 minute flight and a pk near the target, swap to fighters.
4. You need the Fw190 F8 of SG4.

Can add F8's for SG4.
G6 variant I'm not sure on.
Done properly a bomb run will take 15-20 mins, and there are plenty of regulars who prefer them or enjoy them. BUT none of the targets are unobtainable with Mossies, Spit's, Hurri's and Jabo's.

I am stuck on the distances to an extent without resourting to temporary runways but most of them are 5-10 minutes.

Kat
17-01-2007, 00:44
JU-87G and no P-47D-22?
Ju87 variant should just be JU87D - got trigger happy.
P-47's wheren't particularly prevelant in itally, certainly not in ground attack. I COULD drop the 47 in for the 38 though.

Whilst naturally the US did do close air support, the specialists where the desert hardened RAF and commonwealth forces.



Also i noticed some reverse lend-lease, GAZs and ZILs used by the brits. ;)
hehe the Russian truck is actually quite nice looking and gave me a non-US marked truck that looks cool to boot :D

Algorex
17-01-2007, 01:01
Ju87 variant should just be JU87D - got trigger happy.
P-47's wheren't particularly prevelant in itally, certainly not in ground attack. I COULD drop the 47 in for the 38 though.

Whilst naturally the US did do close air support, the specialists where the desert hardened RAF and commonwealth forces.

Twelfth freaking air force (http://www.usaaf.net/chron/44/may44.htm) I usually do talk out of my rear end.

Kat
17-01-2007, 01:07
Twelfth freaking air force (http://www.usaaf.net/chron/44/may44.htm) I usually do talk out of my rear end.

hehe never said they didn't, just that the brits where the specialists. In fact looking through that there are only two reports associated with Cassino. The famed B25/17 raid and one day of P40/47 attacks. The 12th seem to be concentrating on supporting anzio not cassino.

I apologise thought :)


Oh one thing that is noted is those attacks seem to be primarally tactical attacks, essentially rubharb style missions against lines of communication. The attacks in Cassino would mainly be Close Air Support and I have read that the british where highly proficient at providing this at this stage in the war with a FAC/Cab Rank System. This is the reasoning for making the RAF the CAS option and the USAAF the level bombing.

Kat
17-01-2007, 02:04
Added planes to first page

Firelok
17-01-2007, 02:04
The map your proposing is far too big Kat, for our purposes something more like this....
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/firelokc/mapcassino1.jpg
...would work for us. People hate enormous flying distances, you may not agree as to what enormous flying distances are but I wouldn't accept your layout of this map as it is.You're going to have to have a rethink.

Kat
17-01-2007, 02:18
I was just concerned over the allies getting first crack at the axis by using the nearest base. Would if I make the second axis build up Somewhere say M10Num3 work? In that clearing and on the road.


I could also put the allied artillery build up M9 Num2->5?

I guess I could move the allied camp to the nearby village too (where current german force is)?

Are the airstarts ok where they are?

Have the Ju87/88's ( could put them on same bas as the G-2 which is only just off the screenie) or not?

Kat
17-01-2007, 03:36
Heavily revised.

Both allied targets have just been moved but remain the same.

The town axis target will now be a re-enforcement group sheltering on the edge of the tree's before moving up.

The Cassino is untouched.

Airstarts have been moved.

The G2 base now includes the bombers. G2 spawn still limited.

RAF base moved, same planes.

http://www.bananaz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Montec7.jpg

Bone Head
17-01-2007, 08:34
I'm not negative, I'm sharing the knowledge I gained through lots of discussions and failures which I simply want to save you from.
Zorin is right, if the map is too big it becomes a bit of a bind to spend too long getting to teh target and people will go to other servers to get some action :)

I am sure he means well its just sometimes what he has to say sounds very 'abrupt', black and white or to teh point however you want to put it. Maybe it has something to do with how his language translates into English.

Zorin perhaps if you had said:

Hmm, do you think the map might be a little big? People might find it takes too long to reach the target, I love the idea though great work!

:fluffle:

Just my thoughts, I hate to see people faling out ;)

Firelok
17-01-2007, 10:44
1.I was just concerned over the allies getting first crack at the axis by using the nearest base. Would if I make the second axis build up Somewhere say M10Num3 work? In that clearing and on the road.


2.I could also put the allied artillery build up M9 Num2->5?

3.I guess I could move the allied camp to the nearby village too (where current german force is)?

4.Are the airstarts ok where they are?

5.Have the Ju87/88's ( could put them on same bas as the G-2 which is only just off the screenie) or not?

Ok, I've broke things up as I do have tendancy to waffle when I get going :o
1. They can have first crack, especially if it's a difficult position to reduce and blues have a close in target to have a crack at too.

2. M9n2 would work for artillery or even M9n9

3.Yes, my thoughts were it would be easy for the reds to move up along the coast roads outflanking (and this would bring them into a closer striking range for blues evening things out.)

4.If you wanted to focus on the CAS part of the attacks on Cassino you could dispense completely with any US medium bombers/fighter escort and balance things out using only the two ground starts, keeping just FW190 Jabo and Ju87D's on the Blue side. Within any given hour of the Cassino attacks, there might not neccessarily have been both US Bomber sorties and RAF close Air Support attacks, so your not compelled to model both. Taking this into account you could use (with shifting of some targets) two ground bases and the following planes....

BLUE
Bf-109G-6_Late
Bf-109G-2 (limited)
Fw-190A-5
Fw-190A-8 (limited)
Bf-109G-2
Ju-87D-5
MC-205_III (MG151/20s)

RED
HurricaneMkIIb
HurricaneMkIIc
MosquitoFBMkVI
P-40 M
Spitfire LF Mk.VbCLP
SpitfireMkIXc (limited)
Here both sides have a fall-back that isn't as fast/good as first selection. One of the perennial problems we have is compromising an exact historic situation/planeset with what works for both sides. You can go the totally historic route but sometimes this falls down and one side is totally neglected (in terms of team numbers) because pilots don't feel they have a chance to compete.

Kat
17-01-2007, 13:58
I've had a think about the feedback...

Please see the first thread in this post for what I hope is the final 'spec' - Map is close to right ( there will be slight organisation of the german forces in the valley but in the rough location of the clump you see on the map ) - I've removed the picture that's completely inaccurate.

Algorex
17-01-2007, 14:54
Luftwaffe
[Jabo Base 190's are Jabo only]
Bf-109G-6
Bf-109G-6_Late
Fw-190A-4
Fw-190A-8 (No F variants I can see :/)
MC-205_I
MC-205_III
Bf-109G-2 (Limited to 20, the G-6 allows people to quickly change when they run out - I've guessed at 3-4 spawn points)
Bf-109G-6

Allies
[RAF/Italian Base]
HurricaneMkIIb
HurricaneMkIIc
MosquitoFBMkVI
SpitfireMkVbCLP
SpitfireMkVIIICLP
SpitfireMkIXc (HAD to put this in, VIII can't carry bombs - default won't be available)
MC-205_I

If i may, a few suggestions.
Use Fw-190A5s (ata rating issues and so on) and F8s (F8 has been used as F3 before and SG4 started receiving F8s in june anyhow).

P-40E/M is a good addition to 2nd TAFs ground pounding force. Also consider using Seafire L.F.III as a fighter-bomber spit Vc. (in performance seafire LF is par with spit LF Vb, itself almost identical in performance with the bf-109F4)

Kat
17-01-2007, 15:48
Left off P40 because the allies have plenty of GA options and not totally sure if it was used by the RAF at this stage ( I do know the USAAF did use it in this role tho ).

Submitted for testing with the planeset currently in post 1.

Firelok
17-01-2007, 18:13
I'm going to look at this now and then put it on for testing. What I am going to do however is put a note on the brief detailing those aircraft that cannot select default loadout (i.e. must have bombs) even with this it may cause a certain amount of kicking havoc as we have never employed this option before, watch this space :)

Kat
17-01-2007, 18:17
I'm going to look at this now and then put it on for testing. What I am going to do however is put a note on the brief detailing those aircraft that cannot select default loadout (i.e. must have bombs) even with this it may cause a certain amount of kicking havoc as we have never employed this option before, watch this space :)
No problem, I wasn't sure if it had been used before :).

NS-IceFire
17-01-2007, 22:27
If bombs are the consideration...then despite my original comments...maybe the IX would be best. As mentioned, to avoid the kick fest for not being able to use the default loadout. Or...both...really not a big deal. Might just be nice to have it...you know what I mean?

System-M-
17-01-2007, 23:27
Tested and after the initial havoc of warning points and kicking it settles down nicely and was a good fun map and definately enjoyed myself.

We had one complaint fron Shingo5 he didnt like his 190A5 haveing bombs but he will have to live with it.

Kat
17-01-2007, 23:56
Tested and after the initial havoc of warning points and kicking it settles down nicely and was a good fun map and definately enjoyed myself.

We had one complaint fron Shingo5 he didnt like his 190A5 haveing bombs but he will have to live with it.
Yep :) - The warning points I think will be a bit of an issue with this map but an issue that isn't a big one as usually you get the warnings promptly.

Really enjoyed it too, seemed nicely balanced although I do need to tweak the targets. I think firelok is looking at the ini files and I'm going to suggest dropping the targets the RAF attack down to 90%.

For the record the targets the Axis ground forces are more spread out and trickier to location and destroy than the Allied ones. Not just that there are 4 locations vs two for the axis therefore I think dropping the percentage slightly is fair enough.

Algorex
18-01-2007, 00:10
To reduce the warning point issue on blue you can use the fw-190F8 as the jabo focke. Performance wise it makes little difference.

http://koti.mbnet.fi/algore/Il-2/A5F8.png

Also the spit IX can be used as a fighter as when you drop your belly tank the plane is smooth (much like the tempest). I guess i'm saying you should limit out the fuel tanks as well if you want fighter-bombers.

Firelok
18-01-2007, 00:15
I'll look at the targets radius and we'll see what adjustments need making including drop to 90% destruction and I'll return to the runway radius for blues that I porked up. As for the loadout restrictions, the >targets command becomes damned hard to read with lots of planes/loads being restricted, plus we do have those who just can't get to grips with the idea.
We used to have a lot of very restricted maps and it didn't stand up well in the long run. I would be interested to know whether there where lots of spit bomber pilots attacking the targets or whether the usual spitfighter jockies just ditched their bombs and carried on as pure dogfighter.I shall have a look in the stats at the 'usual suspects' to see whether they carried their bombs to target. Did anyone actually attack the monastery by mistake? :)

Kat
18-01-2007, 00:35
I'll look at the targets radius and we'll see what adjustments need making including drop to 90% destruction and I'll return to the runway radius for blues that I porked up. As for the loadout restrictions, the >targets command becomes damned hard to read with lots of planes/loads being restricted, plus we do have those who just can't get to grips with the idea.
We used to have a lot of very restricted maps and it didn't stand up well in the long run. I would be interested to know whether there where lots of spit bomber pilots attacking the targets or whether the usual spitfighter jockies just ditched their bombs and carried on as pure dogfighter.I shall have a look in the stats at the 'usual suspects' to see whether they carried their bombs to target. Did anyone actually attack the monastery by mistake? :)

I think the Monastory remained in tact.. until the Germans had a umm navigational error.

@Algorex :- In this scenario having ALL 190's as Jabo's is completely correct so that won't change. The warning points did happen but they seems to be primaraly spitfire pilots ( inlcuding System I think it was who managed to get booted :eek: ) and a couple of G6 pilots who can fly default ( suspected trying gunpods).

The unique thing about this map is that default is a restricted option on 5 planes. The two FW's, plus the IX, Seafire, Hurri 1b.

I did see at least one Fw definatly attacking ground attack. Most allied ground attacks I saw seemed to be Mossie jockies. A look through most of the events in the mission shows most IX's did destroy ground targets. Only saw two cases in the time I was looking of it not happening and one of the pilots definatly destroyed stuff with a IX on a previous sortie.

Pure Fighters seemed to be exclusively MkVIII CLP.

LeadSucker
18-01-2007, 08:44
Had my first try on this map last night. I was blue flying the G6. We had a very hard time. The Spits where continuously deep into our area (high and low) and at least I had a hard time fighting them. Going on a bomb run seemed like suicide. Wouldn't come near a target before a Spit would rip me appart.

So I feel there is a small imbalance on this map favouring the reds.

We (blue) where slightly outnumbered (15:17) otherwise I would have changed to red. ;)

Almost forgot: Great map. I love the terrain and flying along the coastline with all hills/mountains innland is great. Makes it easy to find your way. This could be a great candidate for UKD3.

Kat
18-01-2007, 12:03
Almost forgot: Great map. I love the terrain and flying along the coastline with all hills/mountains innland is great. Makes it easy to find your way. This could be a great candidate for UKD3.
I'd love it to be UKD3 too :)

As for the percieved in balance. Remeber blues did win :P

That said the G2's where missing but will be available in limited numbers.

Boemher
18-01-2007, 13:31
If this is 1944 and the Fw 190s are supposed to be Jabos exclusively - can we have the correct 1944 Fw 190 Jabos ?

Fw 190 F8 and A5 1.65 ATA are the ground attack variants for 1944.

Fw 190 A4 and A5 are 41/42 - 42/43 planes respectively.

***edit***

Just read through thread. If there were no F8s present then go with Fw 190 A5 1.65 ATA. This saw service introduction in late 1943, it used the same BMW 801 engine ( all Fw 190s from A4 to A8 did ) but it was specially boosted to give extra power in the Jabo role.

irish
18-01-2007, 14:00
Some constructive criticism: Can we add some USAAC planes? P51B, P47D10 or P38J?

Hows about letting us blast the monastary with B25's and A20's? :mp5:

Kat
18-01-2007, 14:15
Some constructive criticism: Can we add some USAAC planes? P51B, P47D10 or P38J?

Hows about letting us blast the monastary with B25's and A20's? :mp5:
Origonally B25, P47, P38J where in but after consideration it was decided to leave them out. The main reason for this is the attack on the Cassino it's self was a bad thing and Glamourising it would be bad. Also there where never any points paying targets in the Monastory so it's a bit pointless to attack something you get no reward for.

About the FW190.. Fair point on the models. The A-4 was a misread of the Ju88 A-4. They should be A-6's and F/G models. I don't think there would be a problem with the ata A-5 too.

Boemher
18-01-2007, 15:38
Thanks Kat. With bomb rack enforced I think Blue Fw 190 pilots will need the extra speed!

Firelok
18-01-2007, 15:47
As for the percieved in balance. Remeber blues did win
This can often be forced upon a side that is getting outflown, it must be noted that one of the unforseen effects of my tinkering with this map before testing yesterday is that tweaking the delicate airfield radius settings for blues I effectively remove a subsidiary airfield that had G2's and G6's on it.
If the teams balance out OK with this and blues are still getting battered by SpitIXs then other measures are required, involving Mk108 nosecannons. I can't quite see quite why it isn't the A5 / A6 as a combo.

In essence a mix of USAAF and RAF aircraft (over the same airspace at the same time) was was a dangerous proposition and flight control sectors were established to prevent freindly-fire incidents, which were happening more and more as WW2 went on. A pure USAAF mission following the Anzio landings might be the solution for those stringing out for a Jug or a 'stang :D

Kat
18-01-2007, 15:56
In essence a mix of USAAF and RAF aircraft (over the same airspace at the same time) was was a dangerous proposition and flight control sectors were established to prevent freindly-fire incidents, which were happening more and more as WW2 went on. A pure USAAF mission following the Anzio landings might be the solution for those stringing out for a Jug or a 'stang :D
Oooo now that's an idea "takes it for his next project"


Can use the same map too *chuckles* - quite probably.

Boemher
18-01-2007, 16:22
Closterman goes on and on about the USAAF shooting at Typhoons and Tempests and there were countless friendly fire incidents recorded. They just couldnt get it in to their skulls that the RAF actually were also fighting the Luftwaffe.

Firelok
18-01-2007, 16:25
I found some information that I/JG2 (Richtofen?) entered Italy in Feb 1944, this is a pure fighter organisation I think, equipped with 190A6/109G6.
I found this here...http://www.ghostbombers.com/JG2/jg2frame.html
and some other I/JG2 Italy searches brought up some great pics etc.
My point being there is adequate reasoning for our purposes (as far as I can see) to let more blues 'go clean' if required.

Kat
18-01-2007, 16:42
Seems they wheren't around long but I guess we could go A-6 clean and A-5 Jabo?

Kat
18-01-2007, 17:24
Closterman goes on and on about the USAAF shooting at Typhoons and Tempests and there were countless friendly fire incidents recorded. They just couldnt get it in to their skulls that the RAF actually were also fighting the Luftwaffe.
From reading action reports the USAAF where heavily occupied supporting anzio. Anzio is actually pretty close to Monte Cassino so it's reasonable to expect RAF and USAAF in the same area for various reasons even if they are not actually doing he same types of missions.