Korean War

[OldGuy59]

Quick guesstimates on these planes:

 

North American F-86 Sabre

Base: Fighter

Deck: Mx2

Climb: x2 (Can climb 1 or 2 full altitude levels per manuver)

Ceiling: 17

Damage: 22

Weapons: BBB/BA

 

Mikoyan-Gurevich Mig 15

Base:Fighter

Deck: Dx2 (45° turns removed)

Climb: x2 (Can climb 1 or 2 full altitude levels per manuver)

Ceiling: 17

Damage: 20

Weapons: DCC/CC

 

Douglas A-1 Skyraider

Base: Heavy Fighter

Deck: C (45° and fast side slips removed)

Climb: 3

Ceiling: 10

Damage: 24

Weapons: CCCC/CC

[Edit: Not sure about using a Heavy Fighter base for this plane? Single engine and pilot]

 

Hawker Hunter

Base: Fighter

Deck: Nx2

Climb: x3 (Can climb 1-3 altitude levels per climb manuver)

Ceiling: 17

Damage: 26

Weapons: DDDD/DD

Source: Scale for Post WWII - Post 21

 

de Havilland Venom

Base: Fighter

Deck: Kx2

Climb: 1

Ceiling: 14

Damage: 22

Weapons: CCCC/CC

Source: Scale for Post WWII - Post 29

 

...

 

Grumman F9F Panther

Base: Fighter

Deck: Qx2 (45° and extreme side slips removed)

Climb: 1

Ceiling: 15

Damage: 20

Weapons: CCCC/CC

 

...

Source: Scale for Post WWII - Post 46

Edited January 3, 2016 by OldGuy59

[Foz]

The Skyraider has a wingspan of 50' ¼". Officially that tips it over the 50' for the heavy fighter base, but it's that close, and as you say, single engine & crew, it becomes a coin toss.

 

After reading up on a lot of these 2nd gen jets, it seems they were designed for maneuverability at low speeds, so it becomes an issue with allowing back the 45 degree turns, but possibly only at slow speeds. Of course that would require thinking on the rules, or new decks designed.

[Jager]

I think we're going to have to rethink the whole base-size issue with these planes. And yes, deck composition will be a big question. Be prepared to defend your position

Karl

[Foz]

I think we're going to have to rethink the whole base-size issue with these planes. And yes, deck composition will be a big question. Be prepared to defend your position

Karl

 

These planes being Korean, or in general?

I always defend my position, until someone attacks me with a compelling argument.

[Jager]

These planes being Korean, or in general?

I always defend my position, until someone attacks me with a compelling argument.

 

In general for post-WW2. I'd like Zoe to jump in with thoughts too.

Karl

[Foz]

In general for post-WW2. I'd like Zoe to jump in with thoughts too.

Karl

 

Yep, or someone official (looks around for a stray Italian)... I know we had decided on 50', but that was until we got something more 'official'

 

I've moved the conversation about base sizes to the committee room, just in case this strays in to stuff we're not allowed to talk about.

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

Could we, and this is me just thinking aloud here, leave the single seat jets at fighter base size not heavy fighter due to speed (harder to hit?) until we get into the realms of heat/radar missiles?

 

Also ref the tighter turns at slow speed could we produce a card with only a slow speed arrow on to simulate this?

 

Neil

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

With the jump from WW1 to WW2 we went up a scale could we do the same for the next jump ie use 1/300th aircraft? Or redo the decks to compensate ie start at smaller WW2 size deck then move to the larger WW2 decks for later jets etc?

 

I think we're going to have to rethink the whole base-size issue with these planes. And yes, deck composition will be a big question. Be prepared to defend your position

Karl

[Jager]

I was assuming a jump up in scale; model scale would be optional, I think, since they will all be "unofficial".

That said, I'm afraid my plate is full right now.

Karl

[BobP]

Copied the A-4 card to go with this Ftoys 1/144 model.

 

 

[johnbiggles]

Since reading this thread, I've been looking into the war in the air over Korea, and have got to the point of ordering various 1/300 planes to see which firm makes the best planes of each type.

I will post some pictures eventually.

There are some interesting decks noted on Mike's plane cards, none of which I can visualise.

I think we need to start from scratch. Once I have worked out some speed ranges, I will need some help with manouverability.

Another thing to think of, how much throttle variation to overall speed is involved? Should we be thinking 3 arrow lengths per card for some aircraft: Cruise, Mil Power, near Stall? or normal, fastest, slowest, with limits and penalties for the top and bottom of the range perhaps.

[badlands122]

Are we really worried about the Speed of the planes as much as we are about the maneuver of the planes?? I would be led to believe that like the previous versions that the Speed was "built into" the game, or just use a token like in the WW2 version. I was looking at AIM products, He has some pretty good looking planes for this time period. I know everyone is worried about the scale of things, I wouldn't recommend trying to go smaller, I think we should focus on how we can make what we need fit into what we already have. I'm sure with a few "minor " adjustments to the maneuver cards we can come up with something we can all agree on. Also maybe the damage cards/tokens a little more potent to take into account the heavier fire power of the more modern weapons. I already like the cards that are already made up, I'll be putting in a order to AIM here shortly to get my Korean War fix while we get the small stuff figured out!! LOL Edited January 2, 2018 by badlands122

[Jager]

It does all kind of tie in. If you keep the same card size (most convenient), then to accommodate the speed issue, you need to increase the ground scale, which will shorten the firing range. We are talking 50cal MGs and 23-37mm cannon, like WGS.

Maneuvering is the big issue, of course. I might be able to look at this this winter (more time, and a great need for distractions), so we'll see.

Karl'

[Dog of War]

Hmmm. Great discussion, like the ideas put forth. However, how does it work for formation flying? I found that Wings of Glory works best for individual fighting - like it was in WWI, or rather age of "Knights of the Air". As soon as you go beyond WWII, try to get formations working, with a wing of 3 or more planes, all things suddenly get messy. WWII and post war rarely have individual planes fighting (or at least what I found). That being said, Boelcke was quite a forward thinker of the time for WWI, with point 8 in his dicta I believe, talking on formations of 8 planes, so even then, good thinkers realised that having individuals is inefficient. So I guess my question is this: what are your experiences with having not a mano-o-mano, but having multiple fighters per side (obviously unless you have physically multi-player games)?

[OldGuy59]

...

So I guess my question is this: what are your experiences with having not a mano-o-mano, but having multiple fighters per side (obviously unless you have physically multi-player games)?

 

I try to fly two planes per person, as the destruction of individual planes in WGS can happen in a single burst. I fly exclusively Battle of Britain, but the Bf.109E can unleash up to 24 damage at short range (with a very bad chit draw, not including explosions), and British planes (Hurricane or Spitfire) can deal out a max of 16 (Although, with two pilot wounds in the B Damage chit bin, I have seen a Bf.109 go down in the first head-on pass with a Hurricane).

 

Damage Chit Break-down post: How Many of Each Damage Tokens Are There? Post #8

 

Flying two planes is pretty much my go-to for WGS, for the above reason. You are usually still in the game, if disadvantaged, if you loose one.

 

Now, that being said, in a lot of my BoB games, flying Vics (three planes) for the Brits, or Rotte (two planes) for the Germans, you do get many situations where the firepower doesn't combine. This is due to range, Line of Sight, formation composition, etc... Strange, but true. It's because of the size of the stands compared to the ground scale of the game, IMHO. When the lead planes of each formation are in range, the wingers are sometimes not, or not at the same range, etc...

 

There might be a House Rule somewhere that all firing is from the lead plane(s), but the 1/200 scale planes with a 1/2250 scale ground distance messes up the range measurements something bad. Korean War ground scale could be worse, but using WGS stands and rulers, it would be similar. I find formations to be less than optimal, at the moment.

 

Formation Flying According to OldGuy59: Suggestions for Dog-fighting Tactics - Post #3

[badlands122]

 

These are what have waiting for the rules..... hehe..

[BodeGier]

Hallo to evryone .

Has anyone a card for the F80 Shooting Star ?

[OldGuy59]

Hallo to evryone .

Has anyone a card for the F80 Shooting Star ?

 

I haven't. Do you have a plane that needs one?

 

PS: Draft drawing:

 

Note, two different styles of wing tip tanks.

Edited August 31, 2020 by OldGuy59

[Jager]

Plus without wing tanks, if you're doing what-if WW2

Karl

[BodeGier]

Thank you to all.

Warlord Games will bring out two new Jets for Korea.

If I would like to use it for WoG , I need this card.

MIG- , Sabre- , Phanter- and Skyraider-cards I have.(Thanks to the forum.)

Now I am search for Shooting Star and P51.

Edited September 1, 2020 by BodeGier

[Jager]

I posted some prototype rules for WW2 jets that included the P-80C.

https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?30383-Jet-rules-from-the-Akron-Flight-Black-projects-hanger

The MiG-15 and P-86 are probably too fast for even those rules. I can look at the Panther and Skyraiders if you'd like.

The Il-10, La-9, La-11, P-82, F4U-4, and YAK-9Ps are also possible.

Karl

[Diamondback]

Plus without wing tanks, if you're doing what-if WW2

Karl

 

IIRC the early (right wing) "teardrop" tank was designed with the airframe, could be removed and just not made in time to go to Italy on trials; the late (left wing) "torpedo" came in with the T-33/TV-2/T2V variants and are integral to the airframe, completely replacing the tip section.

Edited September 1, 2020 by Diamondback

[OldGuy59]

Anyone for a swing at these planes?

 

McDonnell F-4J Navy (no guns):

 

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21PF (no guns):

[badlands122]

I have the Air Force version of the F4J. Edited February 18, 2021 by badlands122

[OldGuy59]

Not a period colour scheme, but inspired by a recent post:

 

 

Link> Claire Hartley Photos

Edited July 13, 2022 by OldGuy59