Ares Games
Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Whither the Bristol F2?

  1. #1

    Default Whither the Bristol F2?

    I don't see the Bristol F2 appearing in AARs. This was such a successful a/c, I'm wondering why the reluctance to use it?

  2. #2

    Default

    Oft the same with the DH.4 too, Larry, I think it's because they're a bit too quick to be caught by the CP flyers if they break contact in a recce/bombing scenario. They're quite fun in a dogfight though. We've used Brisfits in the last couple of Flight Clubs.

    "He is wise who watches"

  3. #3

    Default

    The F2.B just can't match the manoeuvrability of its peers, nor of its opponents. For a dogfight, mid-to-late War, I find players will almost always try to snag an "in-fighter" with snazzy manoeuvres such as 90 degree turns.

    Also, I find LOADS of folks just will not use the F2.B owing to the single forward gun, 'B' firing, when opposing enemy scouts which all have twin guns, 'A' firing.

    They will occasionally use the 'A' firing "failure" F2.B, modelled by Ares, of which only one was ever converted, and it flew only one mission before quite literally throwing the top wing gun mounting on the rubbish heap! I've seen three of these flying together on a table top - utter nonsense!
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  4. #4

    Default

    Interesting fact Tim. Thanks. Would the top wing gun make it too heavy?

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honza View Post
    Interesting fact Tim. Thanks. Would the top wing gun make it too heavy?
    The gun interfered with the compass, which was mounted in the trailing edge of the top wing's centre section.
    Harvey and Waight got lost, and couldn't rely on the compass to get home! They very nearly didn't.

    On return to their aerodrome, they removed the gun, dismantled the mounting and threw it on the rubbish heap, never to be used again.

    Unfortunately, Ares saw the profile of the plane in an Osprey book and produced it, without ever taking note of the history behind it.....thus one in every three Ares F2.Bs is an impossibility.
    Fortunately, snapping off the gun gives you an accurate, authentically coloured F2.B to use in large numbers if you wish - just don't forget to fire 'B/B' instead of 'A/B'
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    The gun interfered with the compass, which was mounted in the trailing edge of the top wing's centre section.
    Harvey and Waight got lost, and couldn't rely on the compass to get home! They very nearly didn't.

    On return to their aerodrome, they removed the gun, dismantled the mounting and threw it on the rubbish heap, never to be used again.

    Unfortunately, Ares saw the profile of the plane in an Osprey book and produced it, without ever taking note of the history behind it.....thus one in every three Ares F2.Bs is an impossibility.
    Fortunately, snapping off the gun gives you an accurate, authentically coloured F2.B to use in large numbers if you wish - just don't forget to fire 'B/B' instead of 'A/B'
    Similarly was the inclusion of the Fokker E.IV with 3 MGs; barely flew in tests, never flew in combat, and shot it's prop off most of the time.
    But munchkins love flying it.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    Similarly was the inclusion of the Fokker E.IV with 3 MGs; barely flew in tests, never flew in combat, and shot it's prop off most of the time.
    But munchkins love flying it.
    Karl
    The latest book I have on this plane now quotes FOUR triple-gun E.IV, not just two, and hypothesizes that Kurt Wintgens flew it in combat, gaining several kills with it.
    As almost always with WW1 "histories" it is not possible to be certain.
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  8. #8

    Default

    Aah, Tim its easy to say that when you are flying for the Hun, when you are hardly ever outgunned, us poor Brits need to even the playing field somehow... Also 3 upgunned F2b's look very nice, after all its a game, most of the Aces our planes represent never met in combat. So I understand your feelings about the upgunned F2b but I will continue to fly them at every opportunity ! I know how much you like shooting them down

    Never Knowingly Undergunned !!

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hedeby View Post
    So I understand your feelings about the upgunned F2b but I will continue to fly them at every opportunity ! I know how much you like shooting them down
    I do!
    With so much practice, I've become pretty good at it!
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    The latest book I have on this plane now quotes FOUR triple-gun E.IV, not just two, and hypothesizes that Kurt Wintgens flew it in combat, gaining several kills with it.
    As almost always with WW1 "histories" it is not possible to be certain.
    According to Squadron/Signals Publications Aircraft Number 158, Max Immelmann flew an E-IV (serial 189/16), a three-gun ship in which he scored three victories.

  11. #11

    Default

    So, if there was one or two upgunned planes of a type in the entire war for a limited period, it means we all get to fly it whenever we want?

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teaticket View Post
    So, if there was one or two upgunned planes of a type in the entire war for a limited period, it means we all get to fly it whenever we want?
    Not in MY games, but others are quite free to be more lenient when GM-ing their own games if they wish.

    It's the old "historical accuracy" vs "play whatever you want for fun" contest.

    My own personal belief is that if you're going to great lengths to show accurate paint schemes, with contemporary matches of opponents, adhering to the history we can confirm (or at least prove to have been likely) then why ruin it all with something that is utter Fantasy? (unless, of course, it's a deliberate Fantasy Scenario! such as King Kong, Dinosaurs, Griffons etc.)
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  13. #13

    Default

    I do like the idea of a King Kong scenario. Does this count as historical?.....there was a film, after all. I mean the original film. So, what are the rules for this set up?

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    Not in MY games, but others are quite free to be more lenient when GM-ing their own games if they wish.

    It's the old "historical accuracy" vs "play whatever you want for fun" contest.

    My own personal belief is that if you're going to great lengths to show accurate paint schemes, with contemporary matches of opponents, adhering to the history we can confirm (or at least prove to have been likely) then why ruin it all with something that is utter Fantasy? (unless, of course, it's a deliberate Fantasy Scenario! such as King Kong, Dinosaurs, Griffons etc.)
    I'm with you on this. 99.9% of my scenarios are historically based. Once in a while I may do Godzilla(or other fantasy type game) for fun but will usually with all the advantageskeep to the historical pairings of sides, I don't truly understand the urge some have to fly a dominating plane. I guess there are those that only want a 'Win' regardless that there is no challenge in it. When I GM I feel satisfied when both sides gripe they don't have something better!

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Larry R. View Post
    I do like the idea of a King Kong scenario. Does this count as historical?.....there was a film, after all. I mean the original film. So, what are the rules for this set up?
    Among the others

    https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/4...solo-expansion

    or

    https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/do...o=file&id=2741

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    Not in MY games, but others are quite free to be more lenient when GM-ing their own games if they wish.

    It's the old "historical accuracy" vs "play whatever you want for fun" contest.

    My own personal belief is that if you're going to great lengths to show accurate paint schemes, with contemporary matches of opponents, adhering to the history we can confirm (or at least prove to have been likely) then why ruin it all with something that is utter Fantasy? (unless, of course, it's a deliberate Fantasy Scenario! such as King Kong, Dinosaurs, Griffons etc.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Teaticket View Post
    I'm with you on this. 99.9% of my scenarios are historically based. Once in a while I may do Godzilla(or other fantasy type game) for fun but will usually with all the advantageskeep to the historical pairings of sides, I don't truly understand the urge some have to fly a dominating plane. I guess there are those that only want a 'Win' regardless that there is no challenge in it. When I GM I feel satisfied when both sides gripe they don't have something better!
    While I'm a big fan of doing what-if games, I also like to run/play historically accurate ones.
    And I detest the player that needs to bend/twist the rules to gain an overpowering advantage.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  17. #17

    Default

    Thanks for the links, Jan. I'm going to search through the forum AARs and see if there is one or two Kong games so I can get a visual of the maneuvers.

  18. #18

    Default

    Larry,

    My King Kong intro thread is here
    You can find the rules from Jan's link and also a Kong management card in the files section.
    re: rules, in the Smash & Toss section I would say any part of a plane's base overlapping the building section where Kong is standing or the section on either side makes him eligible for that attack. It kind of depends on how many planes he's fighting as to whether to do that or do plane peg-on-section. The former makes Kong tougher. Here's a family game.
    The Kong model I used is a Nolzur Great Ape.
    The mat can be downloaded here (90MB file) then printed at vistaprint or elsewhere as a 4' x 4' indoor vinyl banner.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by malachi View Post
    Larry,

    My King Kong intro thread is here
    You can find the rules from Jan's link and also a Kong management card in the files section.
    re: rules, in the Smash & Toss section I would say any part of a plane's base overlapping the building section where Kong is standing or the section on either side makes him eligible for that attack. It kind of depends on how many planes he's fighting as to whether to do that or do plane peg-on-section. The former makes Kong tougher. Here's a family game.
    The Kong model I used is a Nolzur Great Ape.
    The mat can be downloaded here (90MB file) then printed at vistaprint or elsewhere as a 4' x 4' indoor vinyl banner.
    Thanks for the info, Chris. I found the Nolzur Great Ape on Amazon. While I'm waiting for it to arrive, I'll check out your intro thread.
    Last edited by Larry R.; 05-17-2023 at 16:40.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    Similarly was the inclusion of the Fokker E.IV with 3 MGs; barely flew in tests, never flew in combat, and shot it's prop off most of the time.
    But munchkins love flying it.
    Karl
    Everyone try's for an edge

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Larry R. View Post
    According to Squadron/Signals Publications Aircraft Number 158, Max Immelmann flew an E-IV (serial 189/16), a three-gun ship in which he scored three victories.
    Thank you for sharing that. My life is now complete.

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Killer Moth View Post
    Thank you for sharing that. My life is now complete.
    Really, I hope not. I hope you have hopes and dreams and unexpected good things happening, and much more to look forward to.

  23. #23

    Default

    Fokker E.IV 189/16 was from the fourth and final batch of 30 aircraft ordered in Feb 1916 (serials 160/16-189/16), I'd be surprised if they were still turning them out with three MG by this stage, the image certainly supports this but it might, of course, if it had had three, had the third removed by the time this was taken :


    Immelmann almost exclusively used Serial 127/15 delivered to him in January '16, the final machine of the initial production of six aircraft ordered in Sep '15.
    The pics on the old WingNuts site purportedly show the man himself familiarizing himself when it was delivered - it too only appears to have a brace of Spandau's.
    http://www.wingnutwings.com/ww/produ...tid=3048&cat=1

    He shot the prop off of this machine a couple of times at the end of May and mid June, due to interrupter gear issues, the last occasion being the reason he was flying E.III 246/16 the day he died and probably, in part, for the subsequent claims he'd done the same to cause his demise in that aircraft.
    Last edited by flash; 05-21-2023 at 07:06.

    "He is wise who watches"

  24. #24

    Default

    Here's an interesting forum thread re:the Fokker E-IV, from 2014:

    https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/ar...p/t-18779.html

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Larry R. View Post
    Really, I hope not. I hope you have hopes and dreams and unexpected good things happening, and much more to look forward to.
    Nope. I now have all that I need.

    I don't remember where, but I read that Fokker's original plan was to mount three synchronized MG's, not two. In other words, he didn't start with two and then add one—he started with three and then removed one.
    Last edited by Killer Moth; 05-21-2023 at 20:03.



Similar Missions

  1. The Bristol - AAR
    By Vagabond in forum WGF: After Action Reports
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 04-30-2018, 03:53
  2. Bristol MIC
    By Flying Officer Kyte in forum Hobby Room
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 10-21-2014, 12:38
  3. WSF Bristol M.1C
    By clipper1801 in forum Shapeways Models
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-19-2012, 17:30
  4. Replacement DR1 in Bristol
    By Boney10 in forum Hobby Room
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-15-2012, 18:49

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •