what plane did richthofen have when he shot down hawker?
Was it this one or was it red?
what plane did richthofen have when he shot down hawker
what plane did richthofen have when he shot down hawker?
Was it this one or was it red?
it was this Albatros D.II in your picture.Originally Posted by Ken at Sunrise
what plane did richthofen have when he shot down hawker?
Was it this one or was it red?
It wasn't red
The fist plane Richthofen painted in red was an Albatros D.III
This link may help you with MvR victories Ken
Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"
Thanks guys. I appreciate it. I was able to get the Hawker DH.2 and I wanted the correct MvR Albatros D.II (which is now on order)
Not sure what has gotten into me. I was going to purchase just a few planes, a dozen or so, now I'm looking for famous pilots and enough planes for decent matches.
Must be my CDO (that's OCD is in its correct alphabetical order).
be carefull... I started that way and now I own over 200 minis
Didn't we all ?
And I was going to stick with WGF, as well.
I now have nearly 150 WGS planes with another 22 pre-ordered with Keith ...
That will put me well over 300 altogether when counting WGF and WGS
(and have yet to play a WGS game)
I don't think there is a cure ....
Dear Pete: as I always say I don't have a WoG mini's problem: I just happen to be the curator of the largest private collection of WoG minis in Argentina
Yes, I was going to stick with WW1 too ... then moved to WW2... now I'm thinking about getting just a couple of 1/200 F-86 Sabre and MiG-15 from Miniatures Armament... just a couple of each ... ok, maybe I will get an A4 Skyhawk and a Sea-Harrier to represent a Falkland's war scenario or two... now that I think about it a Mirage III and a IAI Kfir may be necesary for that too
So many of us started that way.Thanks guys. I appreciate it. I was able to get the Hawker DH.2 and I wanted the correct MvR Albatros D.II (which is now on order)
Not sure what has gotten into me. I was going to purchase just a few planes, a dozen or so, now I'm looking for famous pilots and enough planes for decent matches.
Must be my CDO (that's OCD is in its correct alphabetical order).
For me it was Von Richthofen's Fokker Dr.I and a Camel just before Christmas 2008.
Right now I have more than 400 aircraft.
Ken, it looks like you have joined us on the slippery slope. I fell in with WGF...only. ARES, Shapeways, Revieresco are all I'll need. Nope, not gonna do Sails or WGS. Hmmm, maybe couple WW2 birds wouldn't hurt...Oh look, a Sails starter set and 6 more SOLs for $75 in a flea market, ok....
I have no idea what my count is now and don't wanna know!
I looked at Sails but I would need to purchase too many ships for my budget. As for WGS I've really onlyconsidered a couple of their bombers to have as display. Memphis Bell, the Tokyo Raid and dam busters are simply... historic (
As long as Wings of Glory isn't putting special cards or rules, that should be common, in specific expansions I'll most likely continue to expand my collection from time to time. If all of the sudden the best way to play Richthofen is to purchase a card that comes with Voss then I'll be content to play solely with what I currently own.
Last edited by Ken at Sunrise; 04-19-2016 at 06:51. Reason: spell'in an grammar
And so it starts…..Thanks guys. I appreciate it. I was able to get the Hawker DH.2 and I wanted the correct MvR Albatros D.II (which is now on order)
Not sure what has gotten into me. I was going to purchase just a few planes, a dozen or so, now I'm looking for famous pilots and enough planes for decent matches.
Must be my CDO (that's OCD is in its correct alphabetical order).
Would a battle between Richthofen's Albatros D.III and the three Airco DH2s, Hawker, Saunby and Andrews be a good fight or too lopsided?
Yes.
In a one-2-one, the MvR Albatros DII (or a later DIII) has the twin advantages of speed due to a big heavy engine and firepower due to having twin belt-fed guns. The Albo can hold its height in a turn but the DH2 turns well inside it but (while turning) cannot easily reload a Lewis drum, if at all. The DH2 also loses height turning tight.
If you have two DH2s then the advantage rapidly swings to the RFC. While one DH2 is manoeuvring to get out of MvR's guns the other will be turning onto him. By the time you have three DH2s then the advantage is heavily with the RFC. One turning away from the attack and two DH2s cross-firing the Albo.
Barry
Last edited by 'Warspite'; 04-21-2016 at 08:55. Reason: poor phrasing
Then maybe two Albatros DIIs against the three DH2s. Would a better match be Saundby, Hawker and Andrews against Manfred Von Richthofen and Oswald Boelcke?
We haven't used Altitude yet so I don't want to start yet and I don't know about reloading or any rules for that?
In real battle re-loading a pilot's Lewis gun would be an issue. In game terms i don't think it is covered but there may be a house rule. There certainly should be!
In the game which you describe, two Albos versus three DH2 would (in my opinion) be more balanced.
It depends a lot on how you play it Ken - how the scenario is set up, ace skills involved and how many people are playing. If you're running in head to head it could be a problem, if you simulate the DH2 being bounced by the Baron there is a chance he could kill one before the others get to turn on him. It would be a good fight, for sure, whether the Baron would be successful depends on the victory conditions set - do you want him downing them all or just downing one and then escape ?
Being the game that it is he could be downed with a boom card straight away or pick up a string of zeroes whilst handing out big numbers, fire and booms himself. My advice is to play it and find out.
Here are the optional reload rules we use in OTT:
Lewis Gun Restrictions: Lewis guns had 47 round drum mags until Nov 1916 when the 97 Round drum mag was introduced to all squadrons. RoF is 500-600 Rpm; or 8-10 Rps - that's 5-6 sec of ammo in a 47 drum; 10-12 sec in a 97 drum. In the game that's 3 rounds of shooting for the 47 drum, 6 for the 97 before you have to reload. (At close range that's 6 or 12 cards of damage with +1s where appropriate)
For those with a fixed over-wing weapon eg N.11, N.16, it takes 3 moves (1 GT) to reload the Lewis Gun - as that entails a pilot standing up in the cockpit to replace the drum it may only fly straights whilst this is done.
For cockpit mounted weapons, or, over-wing models with Foster mounts (eg RFC N.17, SE5s) it takes 3 moves (1 GT) to reload the Lewis Gun but they are only restricted to non steep moves to do so.
Parabellum MG14 Restriction:
Parabelllum MG had 200 round drum mags, RoF is 700rpm, or, 11.6 rps - that's (very roughly) 18 sec of ammo per drum. In the game that's 9 phases of shooting per drum before you have to reload. (At close range that's 18 cards of damage with +1s where appropriate, or, nearly half a B deck !
I suggest you use the 97 Round drum mag with 6 rounds of shooting before you have to reload for the DH2.
Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"
In the actual battle there were three Albatros D.IIs and three DH.2s.
Andrews was about to dive on the lower aircraft when he saw the others and decided against it, only to see Hawker charge in following his own rule of "Attack Everything!!!". Andrews and Saundby followed him in but were themselves engaged and the rest, as they say, is history.
I would use limited fuel and ammo special rules for this battle, both played an important part. Hawker is said to break off because he was running low on fuel and von Richthofen had plenty of ammo during the pursuit - he had not fired a shot throughout the entire dogfight until Hawker made his break.
Altitude was important too - the dogfight started at 3000 metres and by the time Hawker decided enough was enough they were down to less than 1000 metres. Hawker was running out of sky.
Last edited by Carl_Brisgamer; 04-22-2016 at 07:03.
In this scenario height loss in the turn is also a vital factor. Therefore allow the DH 2 pilot the option of using the larger Albatros turn cards for some turns (find a spare pack). As long as the DH2 turns on the wider Albatros cards, no height is lost. Every time the DH2 uses its own (much tighter) turns a height point is lost. When three height points are lost, a whole level (peg) is lost.
Also do not allow the Albatros to "fire around the bend" as the rules currently do. The arc of fire in the game is very generous and makes no allowances for the fact that the same arc is used during a turn as during a straight move. Our old club rules at Harold Wood Wargamers (1/72 aircraft on poles 30/35 years ago) made it a rule that the arc of fire could only cover sky that the aircraft had already 'seen' in that turn. In a turn, bullets cannot follow a curve. Therefore we had a loose cardboard arc of fire (about the same angle as Wings of Glory) but when the aircraft fired in a turn, one long side of that cardboard arc was aligned to the CENTRE line of the model. So if turning left, the left side of the arc went to the centre, when turning right the right side went to the centre. Thus the aircraft could only 'fire' into that part of the curve that its guns had already passed over. Same arc of fire but no possibility of firing around the curve into space that the guns had not yet pointed at. This was a vital advantage for tight turners as we used eight or nine different turning radii instead of the two or three in Wings of Glory. It also went some way to compensating for the advantages of the good divers and climbers who were using 'boom and zoom' tactics. Over the years the two balanced out well.
Barry
I believe you mean DH2s, the DH 4 was not in service then!
Thanks, yes of course, all fixed now.I believe you mean DH2s, the DH 4 was not in service then!
It's easily done!
Hm, seems like a good house rule, Barry. Will have to give it a try.
Are you referring to altering the fire angle in a turn to prevent aircraft firing around a curve?
Harold Wood Wargamers introduced that one 30-odd years ago, I have been rather surprised that it has not appeared on here so far given how logical and analytical most players are.
Given that none of us are flying Dr Who's Tardis, using the basic fire angle while turning does mean that (technically) you could be 'firing into the future' if the target is only just in the edge of the fire angle. The target is in an area where the fixed forward guns cannot have yet come to bear.
My take on the pilot's fire angle - as printed on the bases - is that it represents a certain 'fudge' factor to make the game playable plus an indication of how much the pilot could kick the rudder in level flight and correct his aim. Clearly the pilot cannot do the rudder kick while banked in a turn as he would rapidly dive and then spiral downwards.
Last edited by 'Warspite'; 04-22-2016 at 15:32. Reason: multiple corrections for spelling and clarity of content
Barry, I recall from previous discussions here that you are spit on in saying that playability is the reason for the generous arc if fire. Same reason as for the incredibly wide arcs of fire in "Sails".
I recall someone mentioned a similar idea in a thread many years ago where they used half the arc of fire on the outside of a turn, just can't remember who or where it came up now !
Your take on the 'fudge' factor is right and fits with the games construct with speed bands, damage cards, rates of fire,altitude etc. I look on it as taking into account things such as deflection, cones of fire. I like the idea, though as I play shooting as peg to peg I have already partly solved that issue, and it's one worth trying I think. (add to list of things to remember !)
Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"
Yes, half the fire arc would also work.
We favoured keeping the whole fire arc to retain the 'fudge factor' but also to give the turning pilot an alternative shot should his/her fire arc pass across a different aircraft. In that case the pilot has managed a snap shot while turning.
Barry
Played this as a solo game yesterday - it was pretty intense and close action - I gave it up when both main players inflicted special damage on each other in the third or fourth turn - one wounded, one set on fire - as I thought they'd have other things on their mind and it was tea time ! I may try the one v three sometime.
Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"
Interesting, a draw!
A lot of things to think about in this, I particularly like the idea of using slower rate turns from another compatible deck.In this scenario height loss in the turn is also a vital factor. Therefore allow the DH 2 pilot the option of using the larger Albatros turn cards for some turns (find a spare pack). As long as the DH2 turns on the wider Albatros cards, no height is lost. Every time the DH2 uses its own (much tighter) turns a height point is lost. When three height points are lost, a whole level (peg) is lost.
Also do not allow the Albatros to "fire around the bend" as the rules currently do. The arc of fire in the game is very generous and makes no allowances for the fact that the same arc is used during a turn as during a straight move. Our old club rules at Harold Wood Wargamers (1/72 aircraft on poles 30/35 years ago) made it a rule that the arc of fire could only cover sky that the aircraft had already 'seen' in that turn. In a turn, bullets cannot follow a curve. Therefore we had a loose cardboard arc of fire (about the same angle as Wings of Glory) but when the aircraft fired in a turn, one long side of that cardboard arc was aligned to the CENTRE line of the model. So if turning left, the left side of the arc went to the centre, when turning right the right side went to the centre. Thus the aircraft could only 'fire' into that part of the curve that its guns had already passed over. Same arc of fire but no possibility of firing around the curve into space that the guns had not yet pointed at. This was a vital advantage for tight turners as we used eight or nine different turning radii instead of the two or three in Wings of Glory. It also went some way to compensating for the advantages of the good divers and climbers who were using 'boom and zoom' tactics. Over the years the two balanced out well.
Barry
I have long thought that a set of turns half the rate of standard turn should be available as one doesn't always want to screw it round full tilt, sometimes a gentler turn would get you on target and tailing much more effectively.
Something for the cleverer heads to think on for a house rule (advanced Ace skill) perhaps?
I think I am going to make up some firing arc cards for the turning shots too, just to see how that plays out.
Thank you.
Under our old Romford Wargames Club/Harold Wood Wargamers rules (circa 1972 to about 1988) we used cardboard turning circles increasing in radii in half inch increments to allow our 1/72 aircraft to turn. The size range was from A to G. A was smallest, G was largest. Each was marked off in inches around the circumference as we used one inch for every ten miles an hour of aircraft speed. Thus a 100 mph type would fly 10 inches each move.
Typical examples:
Sopwith Pup - A
Sopwith Triplane and Fokker Dr1 - B
Sopwith Camel - C (left) and A (right)
SE5a, Fokker DVII - D
Roland, DH4 etc - E
The larger turns - up to G - were for battle damage to control surfaces - an 'E' turning aircraft scoring "up two turn circles" on a damage roll would use G as a new minimum.
The basic rules were that these letters were the minimum turn circle. However if a Fokker Dr1 pilot wanted to use (say) a D or E turn circle that was quite acceptable. He/she could simply swing wider by using less control.
A later rule was that aircraft with greater than full speed (i.e. using dive bonus speed) also had to use a +1 turn as its turning radii increased with speed. So a diving E aircraft would actually have to use an F turning circle.
The turning circles were based on wing loading (pounds of aircraft weight per square foot of wing area) with the smaller turning circles going to aircraft with the lowest wing loading.
A later factor was 'roll turn delay'. It was realised that aircraft with greater wing spans have a slower rate of roll before the turn could even commence. Thus a Bristol Fighter (C turn) takes longer to start a turn than a Fokker DVII (D turn) but once banked could then turn tighter than the D VII. This would affect the amount of snaking or turning in two directions which could be done each move.
The RTDs were more difficult to assess but we worked out:
Fokker DVIII - none
Most fighters - one inch but Spads and Albatros were 1.5 inches
Most two-seaters - two inches but clumsy or damaged aircraft might be as much as three inches.
You will note that the DVIII gets a zero RTD as it was rated as highly manoeuvrable by contemporaries and this goes some way to compensating for its 'E' turning circle as it had a very high wing loading, higher than many two-seaters. So a DVIII could snap from a left turn to a right turn immediately. A Camel would pay one inch to roll into a turn… another inch to straighten up from that turn (return to upright) and then a further inch to turn the other way. Once banked into a turn this move, the RTD would not be paid next move provided you continued to turn in the same direction. To straighten up after a turn is completed the RTD is paid but if you were making a straight move anyway the RTD was considered to be part of that.
If aircraft went inverted (say to Split S/half-roll downwards) all aircraft paid a double RTD but the DVIII paid a single RTD.
It was a simple system and kept our Airfix and Revell 1/72 aircraft airborne for many years!
Excellent discussion guys. I'm inspired to test-play at least one of the shooting-arc variations discussed above.
Our local Family and Friends gaming group here in Ottawa, Canada has already added one 30 degree Left and one 30 degree Right turning cards into the decks of all aircraft. This provides a finer direction adjustment instead of being limited to the less-seen 45 degree turn, the common 60 degree turns and the available-for-some 90 degree turns.
I'm thinking that our House-rule 30 degree turn would use the official arc-of-fire as would the 45 degree turn. The 60 degree turn would use all of the official off-side arc plus only half of the turn-side arc . The 90 degree turn would use only the official off-side arc (eliminating all of the turn-side arc).
For in-person table-top gaming (as opposed to PBeM gaming which we play more often) players would make these adjustments on their honour under the normal scrutiny of their opponents, OR, for those who do not mind marking-up their manoeuvre cards, this would only require placing a visible but small indelible coloured mark on each of the 60 degree turn cards to define the extent of the reduced turn-side arc, and the 90 degree turn cards could be marked with a small but easily seen "X" in the center of the turn-side arc. FYI, we also normally play with Altitude Rules with shooting/damage advantages given to the diving/higher aircraft.
We are not at all averse to having House Rules but need to feel that they add greater play/fun-value than any added hassle/complexity tat they cause. To my mind, the change that I've outlined (inspired by your excellent discussions in this thread) would meet our "greater play-value with little or no added hassle" requirement. Whereas, we have tested/used ammo rules for the drum-fed Lewis gun but found that they added much more hassle for too little play value.
Thx again guys; Bruce.
P.S. not going to Origins this year ... maybe next year ... but Ross Allan will be there and will no doubt drop-in.
Is the DH2 hard to find? I was looking to create this same dogfight?
Like rocking horse poo Chris !
Sounds a very similar idea to the Paragon Wargames Group system I have in the 1972 Military Modelling magazines Barry.
Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"
There was some petty friction as to which club did it first. Paragon claimed they were first, we KNEW () we were first. Of course, as with jet engines and radars, it was probably a case of parallel development. I seem to recall Don Featherstone had already written his book on air wargaming [edit - in 1966] so that book was probably the springboard for both clubs.
The systems differed, Paragon always used poles, we started with Meccano strips (25 holes) attached to wooden bases. The split half fuselages were grooved to accept the Meccano strip passing through, a match stick placed in the hole stopped the aircraft from slipping down from its current height.
Currently (today!) I am working on something similar but different, a cross over between the Wings of Glory and Harold Wood system. More news when I am happy with it.
Barry
Last edited by 'Warspite'; 04-26-2016 at 03:29. Reason: added date
Contact Marquee Models of Harlow, Essex. I will swear that they had them at Salute in London.
http://www.mmodels.co.uk
Email or phone them. Their online listing is showing nothing when I know they had tons at the show and were doing a 10% discount.
Barry
Thought that may be the case - I was too young at the time, and these were my brothers magazines, but the idea always fascinated me and it was that distant memory that prompted me to jump on Wings of War with the minis when I found it. Funny how things stay with you over the years.There was some petty friction as to which club did it first. Paragon claimed they were first, we KNEW (
The systems differed, Paragon always used poles, we started with Meccano strips (25 holes) attached to wooden bases. The split half fuselages were grooved to accept the Meccano strip passing through, a match stick placed in the hole stopped the aircraft from slipping down from its current height.
Currently (today!) I am working on something similar but different, a cross over between the Wings of Glory and Harold Wood system. More news when I am happy with it. Barry
Look forward to seeing what you create Barry, I rather like the idea of more specificity between the aircraft. Keep us posted on your progress.
Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"
Bless you.
The larger number of turn circle sizes did give each aircraft a more unique 'feel'. Several of us converted Fokker D VIs (yes 6, not 7) after we found it had a better turn than a D VII. Revell 1/72 scale DVII wings were cut down by two ribs on each side and then mated to a Revell Dr1 fuselage - essentially what Anthony Fokker had done when he made the real thing. Only about 50 were ever built in early 1918 but it made for an interesting alternative and it used a 'C' turning circle instead of the DVII's 'D'.
Yes, I will keep you informed!
The "digital" nature of the turning radius has been discussed here before; it would be nice to turn less than the amount on the card sometimes, but the execution would require a ton more cards per deck
Karl
It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus
I have a house rule when on a photo - bombing type mission lining up the target run, I let you turn less than the actual turn on the card so you can actually line up the run. Before coming to thisThe "digital" nature of the turning radius has been discussed here before; it would be nice to turn less than the amount on the card sometimes, but the execution would require a ton more cards per deck
Karl
I found it sometimes impossible to hit the target. An initial setup position can prevent you from hitting your target with only 60 degree turns.
That, or, a turn template and tokens to place on the turn card, or maybe this might help you, post #9, or maybe not !The "digital" nature of the turning radius has been discussed here before; it would be nice to turn less than the amount on the card sometimes, but the execution would require a ton more cards per deck
Karl
Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"
Food for thought, certainly.That, or, a turn template and tokens to place on the turn card, or maybe this might help you, post #9, or maybe not !
Karl
It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus
I have a house rule when on a photo - bombing type mission lining up the target run, I let you turn less than the actual turn on the card so you can actually line up the run. Before coming to this
I found it sometimes impossible to hit the target. An initial setup position can prevent you from hitting your target with only 60 degree turns.
A house rule to allow a widest turn card to be used as a 10 degree deviation from a straight might help.
To play, place two cards face down in one slot on the pilot's playing board. A straight and a wide turn played indicates a straight move but 10 degrees off line.
Does that help??
Just got round to wrapping up the 3 v 1 battle, lots of chasing round and round - one Tommy retired having picked up a 10 in collision with the Hun who got a 4 from it; battle ended when he picked up his second pilot wound but he dealt a 5 Wound to Hawker to give him 10 damage overall, the other was unscathed.
Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"
I just posted the AAR for my re-fight of the Von Richthofen vs Hawker engagement here - http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...413#post402413.
Simulation did not quite result in an historical outcome!
I have demo'd a solo 3 v 1 variant here in the AAR sub-forum following ken's query at post 12.
Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"
Thanks Dave.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks