SC: Fighter Bomber Capabilities

[Liam]

Often discussed but never in great detail. What's the average bombload of a Fighter aircraft in the WW2 era? I know the earlier versions of the Stuka carried a 250 pounders and 4 50 lbers.<not true fighter either, a multi-role dive-bomber> Modified versions of most staple WW2 fighters wouldn't come near exceeding that. MG does not penetrate armor and in a fighter unit it's primarily made up of Air to Air combat fighters that don't carry that sort of heavy ordinance. You had specialized fighters or fighter-bombers to take out tanks, fortifications, or vehicles, trains, etc... A few of the heavy fighters of the day had Cannons that could do damage to any of these targets but not many and rarely achieve 'kills'... As far as I know, American fighters weren't big on cannons either...only excessive MG loads.

In SC, as discussed before Strategic Bombers the Backbone of destroying ground targets if any was used would have a hellish bombload. I am uncertian of the precise bombload of the B-17. The versions I'm familiar with carried 12 500 lbers<though that figure would have to be backed up with a better resource>. With lowflying and in a formation they would have massive carpet bombing capability. Accuracy so so... Though Fighters, and fighter-bombers would be incapable of sustaining themselves at all at this level of destruction upon ground targets. Unless you had 20,000 of them. Considering that, fighters in SC need to be modified as carriers were!

They're not Fighters, they're medium or heavy bombers... Also the fact that a Bomber Unit in SC has a double effect??? That's not accurate... Bombers would carry up to 20 times the destructive force of a Fighter. So that must be altered.. Perhaps we should focus on making Bombers in a patch what they really were and Fighters less capable of destroying ground units so that the diversification is more expensive but yet still achievable...not doing away with AirPower altogether but making both much more realistic. You could lower the price of Fighters as they're only Machine Gun Turrets in the Sky not Raining Hails of Bombs

Both forces working together, and the development of tech together evening out the cost and replacing the Queen as the Fighter Unit and making the Bomber the Queen as it should be..and useful rather than a usually unexploited unit type

[Piumarcobaleno]

I don't know if you have experience with Pacific General, but there airfleets were split into 3: Strat. Bombers (low ground attack, caused $ loss bombing certain cities\targets, regardless of troops in that place, that got bombed anyway, low air combat but high air defence), Tac. Bombers (good ground attack, low air combat) and Fighters (low ground attack, best air combat).

Anyway i wouldn't relate ground attack effectiveness only to bomb payload; it's like saying that a big cannon is a better artillery piece than a smaller one. Every piece has his use, and if strategic bombers were used to bomb cities and tac bombers to attack troops, probably it's because of operative difficulties.

Maybe a heavy bomber, so slow and cumbersome, could have many problems dealing with ground fire, and have some difficulties hitting anything different from fixed targets..

Early tank designs (1920-30 ca.) called for multi-turreted tanks, with a great firepower increase, and even WW1 tanks had 1 cannon and up to 8 heavy MG, but eventually tanks armed with 1 main gun and 1 or 2 MGs became the standard during and after WW2.

I doubt that actual SC Strat Bombers should have any increased effect: they are great at naval and resources bombing, they reduce entrenchement by 2, and with an escort they can effectively help in pushing enemy HQs farther from the front.

Sure, airfleets are a bit overpowered with the coupling of anti-air and anti-ground capabilities, but, all in all, i find SC is almost balanced as it is. We'll wait and see what Hubert is cooking in SC2, i suppose..

[Iron Ranger]

I am uncertian of the precise bombload of the B-17

The US used primarily five bombers during the war:

B-17 6000 #s of bombs a distance of 2000 miles - 13 50 cal MG (187MPH)

B-24 8800 #s of bombs close to the same distace as the B-17 (303-200 MPH) - 10 50 cal MG

B-25 3000 #s of bombs, Top speed is 275 MPH - 6 50cal MG - some also carried a 75mm cannon

B-26 5000 #s of bombs, Top speed is 317MPH - 12 50 cal MG (called the widdow maker early in the war)

B-29 Introduced too late for use to worry about (HB L3?)

SC - AIR FLeets vs Stg Bombers

S TA SA AA NA RA

air 5 2 2 3 4 2

stg 6 1 1 1 5 3

Air fleets are twice as good in attacking everything expect naval and strategic targets, and in that bombers only 20-30% better then air fleets. This is not to say bombers are useless just you have no need for 10 of them.

I think we keep veiwing Air Fleets as huge numbers just fighters while I think Hubert was thinking they were a combination of Fighters, Dive bombers, Medium Bombers, and speciality attack planes. While the Stg Bomber unit is just massed Heavy Bombers with some fighter escort (AD incress with jets). If we were to try and fit this in historically you might only see 1 UK STG Bomber and 1-2 US Stg Bombers on the map.

[Liam]

I know during the end Days, P-47s were used a lot to strafe trains. Though they weren't used to strafe factories unless they got don't to the wire for a kill. I'll probably put my reputation on the fact most Heavy Targest required aircraft too cumbersome to be fighters. Jeeps, Trains, Pillboxes, tanks, APCs, Artillery, Infantry, etc...just about anything on that size is vulnerable to MG or lightly armed aircraft. Though something with cement walls 4-6 ft thick is unlikely to recieve much damage from a few 250 lbs bombs that wouldn't be able to be fixed overnight... Not only that but those lightly armed creatures, were meant for shorter distances anyways for most of the war. Usually the operational range wasn't anywhere near Germany until the Americans came in with their P-38s/P-47s/P-51s... The Germans, British, and Russians as far as I know never possessed long range fighters. The Germans themselves lacked a bomber capable of doing much after the HE-111. It great early on, but outdated fast and wasn't a Heavy bomber...The fact is in SC, Fighters are both..and there is no inbetween. Whatever term you'd like to use, bombers are obsolete. Who uses them in SC terms? I don't unless you virtually give them away for free. Yes they do 'some' damage but the payload is way underrated in comparison with what Jets do with experience. More Experience Fighter Aircraft would do jack to ground units<they'd be finer at aerial combat not bombing<you can't fix more bombs onto a more experienced aircraft he can only be more precise with it?>... Also Jets are not any greater range than regular fighters and too cumbersome to be good fighter-bombers anways in WW2 era...

Yes, you're right that certian models of light aircraft, fighter style. Strategic level remeber here... Were ideal for hitting Military Targets. Bombers were ideal for hitting city targets. I don't know of many cases of Fighters being used to reduce the industrial capacity of a city. To reduce a resource wealth? Do you?

In fact even in WW1, they didn't use fighters against industrial targets of any kind as far as I know only as escorts for the heavier bombloads of the bigger aircraft. That were not maybe as precise but in general when your target is two or three football fields why do you need to hit a precise target?

[ October 11, 2003, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[Liam]

to boot:

In SC how many fighters in a fighter fleet are used to bomb the ground and how many are used to shoot down enemy aircraft while this occurring?

How many multi-role aircraft can you afford? It's not realistic nor is it good for the game. It makes an uberunit that can like a Transformer, "More than meets the eye!" turn from a Truck into a Blasting MegaBot

[ October 11, 2003, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by Liam:

I don't know of many cases of Fighters being used to reduce the industrial capacity of a city. To reduce a resource wealth? Do you?

As far as i know nearly every german fighter (except the bi-planes in 1939) was equipped with 20 mm cannons (or even worse) and only the allied fighters were reduced to MGs. And it was Hitler, who urged to use fighters as bombers (FW 190, ME 262), even though they weren't usefull at all in this role.

[Jordy]

There are a couple allied (well american) fighters that were armed with cannons. One is famous, the other not so much.

The American P-38 Lightning, an excellent fighter in its own rights, was equipped with a 20 mm cannon, 4 50 cal. mchine guns, and could be retrofitted with rockets or bombs.

The P-39 Airacobra was not used that much by the americans because it had poor flight characteristics due to where the engine was mounted (behind/below the pilot), when cornering at high speeds the plane could "roll" and lose control. With the engine not being mounted in the front of the plane (where the cannon was) the pilot couldn't just point the fighter downward to regain control because the weight that is there on other fighters, wasn't there on this one. Anyway, I'm rambling, so it had one 37mm T9 cannon, two .50 cal machine guns, and four .30 cal machine guns. It was used by the Soviets though, primarily to attack tanks.

I can't remember if this was said earlier in the thread, but the allies really lost the need to arm their fighters with cannons when they started pumping out planes and pilots (trained in the US on secure, safe airfields). They had enough planes and pilots to make air, ground, and strategic specific aircraft, and kept the mixing of the three to a minimum. The Germans, running low on pilots and with no place to train them (not to mention they didn't even really have a training regimen in place) needed to mix the three (well two really, minus strategic). And later in the war the cannons were used not for ground support, not for air superiority, but primarily to destroy bombers. Whether that was the original intention or not is debatable, but it was what their primary use became. On the fighters anyway.

As for the RAF I don't know much about their fighter specs.

[Liam]

I know the series of Spitfires came in a variety from MKI on... don't think they evolved their fighter technology much beyond that.

Whether it was Hubert's idea to include the whole shabang in Fighter Units I'm not sure. I figured as much. The Germans overall would then have 'very poor quality' fighter units naturally. By mid War when the Air War was at it's Zenith over the skies in Europe. The FW190 was the only german plane that wasn't obsolete.

Like the Red Airforce<with its Yaks,Shturmoviks> they relied on the Staple 109s and Stukas to Wars end... The Stuka was a flying coffin at this point unless on the Eastern Front and the 109s were assigned anti-bomber missions whilst the fw190s engaged enemy fighters

we're missing a key element IMHO

I'd prefer that the price of the Fighter unit if it's divebomber/medium bomber/fighter all in one to be at least doubled!

Why have Cruisers in a game when Cruisers are only support ships for BattleFleets and much larger ships like Carriers/Battleships, etc...

Why bother with corps just have have strength armies

[ October 12, 2003, 07:43 AM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[VonPaulus]

About the ME109 being outclassed. You might find it interesting to know that ironically enough the Jewish dfense force used several Me109's in the 1948 War of Independence. Gives you something to think about.

[Liam]

VonPaulus:

Yes I'm aware of that. It stayed in service awhile.. I wonder if it was a good will gesture that the Germans shipped over some 109s to the Isrealis for war reparations. It'll never be enough, but whoever says the Jewish people couldn't protect themselves were definitely proven wrong in the MidEast

ME109 was rugged enough. So so on the armament. Fast enough, but not it's greatest asset. It could climb well, that was it's finest asset and for scramble missions to face incoming Airfield Raids was a superb fighter. It remained in Service with other Airforces awhile... I'm certian a way for Germany to make any money after the War to rebuild, not because of the quality of the fighter.

[VonPaulus]

Liam,

Good morning. I believe that Poland actually got the 109's, and other armaments through and "underground railroad" of sorts by way of France. The UK, USA and just about everyone else left the infant Jewish state to fend for itself, knowing full well that they had little to no defensive capability to do so. At least, thats what was thought. Any who if I remember correctly several Jewish groups in the US put their funds together to help by any piece of equipment no matter if it was obsolete or not.This practical embargo (and one during the 1954 Suez War) helped the IDF develop their own defense works which of course led to the Uzi, Merkava, etc. Very interesting stuff. ~Paul

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by Liam:

VonPaulus:

Yes I'm aware of that. It stayed in service awhile.. I wonder if it was a good will gesture that the Germans shipped over some 109s to the Isrealis for war reparations. It'll never be enough, but whoever says the Jewish people couldn't protect themselves were definitely proven wrong in the MidEast

ME109 was rugged enough. So so on the armament. Fast enough, but not it's greatest asset. It could climb well, that was it's finest asset and for scramble missions to face incoming Airfield Raids was a superb fighter. It remained in Service with other Airforces awhile... I'm certian a way for Germany to make any money after the War to rebuild, not because of the quality of the fighter.

Far away from history. These IAF ME109 were bought in/from Czecheslovakia. In 1948 Germany was rubble filled with hungry people and not at all able to sell / grant fighters, own weapons. German / Israeli Weapon exchange started years later.

As far as i know these czech Me109 had different motors which made these MEs extremly difficult to fly.

little info with pics

[Liam]

xwormwood:

the irony is still beyond words...

I can't say I blame the Czechs who'd been sold out. Nor blame the Isrealis for using their former Opressors Aircraft...it was available aye?

and as far as most of the Nazi War Criminals, hell half of them likely gotta away in the crunch...especially the low profile ones, some I know were in Syria probably planning the demise of the remainder of the World's Jewish Population, sad stuff

I am quite proud to say as a boy I was obsessed with the 109. It has some awesome features it is an outclassed fighter in the face of finer American/British Aircraft though not bad all in all. You see the spitfire to me as that of a Great White Shark of the Skies. A huge bite and a fast and maunevarable AC. Underestimated by all too... The P-51 the True Bald Eagle over the Skies of Europe, unparalleled bird of prey swooping down upon unsuspecting German's scrambling from their airfields uncertian as they were becoming more and more Green with time what was comming and how long they would live.

I'm sure that to get a FW190 was a rarity in Germany, and that though the 109 would be better suited for a Green Pilot because it would definitely handle better than a clunkier heavy armed durable Fighter...that ultimately it could be an equal to the P-51 with Altitude. All the Sims I've done testflights on and the little reading material I've had the pleasure to get my hands on WW2 fighters and the documentaries show that the 109 never truly had a successor.

It was what could you say a dead-end design. They keep going from E-F-G-K Models trying to push it to the very edge of what the airframe was capable of... As the spitfire became obsolete in the face of the Corsair-Mustangs so would the 109s no matter what. The turnfighter was on it's way out after the Battle of Britian. Although I will say the Soviets and Japanese created vast #s of these Paper Kites to fly and die for their country and achieve still marginal success

Whatever people argue about Speed and the old day of dogfighting I still firmly believe don't get caught low-and slow in a clunky speed fighter like a FW190/P-51/Corsair. Any of the Axis turnfighters would eat them for breakfeast in that place...

Reality of dogfighting is what I have heard and I paraphrazing, "In most cases it was who saw who first and that was it, it was over!"

[ October 17, 2003, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]