Aircraft vs Ship Attacks

[JerseyJohn]

Lars,

Excellent points, especially about the unescorted bombers. A lot of that was carryover from the 1930s, when a lot of people thought bombers would have little or no need of fighter escorts. That attitude changed in a hurry.

Also, on the doctrine. Sure, most of the aircraft on both sides spent at least part of the war being used incorrectly. The worst case I know of was the ME 110, which was supposed to serve as a long range escort but wound up needing escorting itself.

The final idea, about ditching the strategic bombers altogether is pretty much what the Germans decided on. I don't believe that was their fatal air decision. To me it was the series of mistakes they made regarding jets. The had a prototype fling in the spring of 1939 and shelved it, along with the people who designed the plane, in the belief that it would be a quick war and all that. When they finally got back to the jet idea it was derailed again when Hitler decided it had to have bomb dropping capabilities. And on and on ...

Looking back, I'd say the strategic bombers of 1944-45 were great weapons, as you state with your passing the research threshold. But the strategic bombers, and again as you state, their use, from 39-43, were questionable at best.

In the European theater I think the Allies could have done equally well large numbers of smaller aircraft, particularly if they'd known how successful some of those designs would turn out to be. But in the Pacific, I believe the strategic arm was essential.

[Lars]

Heh, little story for you, JJ

My father was in the Navy, originally based on destroyers as radio operator.

One day a Panther jet came in and did a low level mock attack on the ship.

They didn’t get a gun on him. And that was with advance warning.

The old man promptly said, “F*** This!” and signed up for pilot training.

Moral of the story? If you’re in range of any kind of air, you’re dead meat.

[JerseyJohn]

I agree, Lars.

All anyone needs to do by way of verification is look at the German 1944 Ardennes Offensive. Lacking any kind of air parity, the Germans had to plan it for the worst weather, which wasn't good for their own machinery or movement, but it meant they'd at least get to slug it out without being anihilated from the sky. As soon as those skies cleared and the aircraft appeared the battle was over. Period.

Another example, the mighty Bismarck being done in by very obsolescent and slow byplanes launching torpedoes at her.

And then, of course, there's the two greatest battleships of all time, Yamato and her sistership Musashi going under after massive air attacks -- earlier, the British Prince of Wales and Renown -- Pearl Harbor, Midway, the whole bit. Air Power was definitely the key element of WWII.

[Lars]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

In the European theater I think the Allies could have done equally well large numbers of smaller aircraft, particularly if they'd known how successful some of those designs would turn out to be. But in the Pacific, I believe the strategic arm was essential.

Oh, might as well address this.

When the old man got out of pilot training he was in P2V Neptunes. Extremely long range, twin engine bomber. And it was designed in WWII. And you really didn’t want one to find you. Too late for the war though. Still flying today in various Navies.

Here’s a great link for you if you’re interested in what the Navy considered “Strategic” air. Lot’s of WWII stuff in the squadron histories.

http://www.vpnavy.org/

btw, he was in VP-17 for awhile, then went to carriers.

[JerseyJohn]

Lars,

Appreciated, I am interested and will be going to the link after posting.

Toward the end of the Pacific War, the Navy had so many carriers that it was conducting very extensive attacks against Japanese bases protected by landbased air fleets, and murdering them. An example is the pre-Leyte attack on Formosa, and later carrier based attacks on Japan itself. Naval aircraft sank anything they saw either in or leaving or heading to Japanese harbors. They were devastating in their own right and the Japanese by that time were obviously powerless to stop them.

But I still believe their effectiveness was greatly increased by the B-29 attacks on the inland cities.

Then again, after the sinking of the Japanese merchant fleet and the strangulation of the Home Islands, it may not of been absolutely necessary to flatten their cities. I'll need to think about this one. In the early 70s I thought a blockade would have worked just as effectively, but, at the time, I wasn't taking into consideration the USSR also getting involved in that war, creating a need for speeding up the process.

I guess your father was in during the late forties or early fifties.

-- Speaking of good prop aircraft that was designed for WWII but missed the action, the Flying Wing was also very fine in it's original propellar design.

Thanks for the link.

[Lars]

I made the arguement for blockade in the mining thread.

Happy reading, that VP site will keep you busy for days.

[SeaMonkey]

Well gentlemen in light of Dave's answer that each nation can have different values and costs and in the interest of historical accuracy, at least initially, we may have to enter values for each nations' AF, CAG, and Bombers.

I didn't want to complicate this issue, but I believe it maybe necessary. I would think with the plethora of knowledge gracing this forum we could come up with a workable solution.

Let's start simple, something that is generic with all aircraft roles(combat) taken into account, the CAG. So, am I right in assuming the carrier unit in SC2 represents two carriers,3.. 4 anyone? So two(start basis) CAGs, somewhere around 120 combat aircraft for the middle ground, say 40 of each type, but torpedo bombers having dual capability to carry bombs and perhaps fighters a lesser payload of dropable ordinance?

I'm thinking out loud here! Maybe 80 true bombing type aircraft and 40 with the lesser ability. USA with bigger carriers, more, UK middle, USSR/Axis excl.Japan a little less, theoretically? Doctrine effectiveness, definitely UK/USA, to a lesser extent USSR/Axis.

The reason I picked CAGs other than their TO&E was a basis to compare the other air units to, as far as numbers and roles. I believe we should also think about air defense of the units as that predicates their effective interaction with each other(intercepts).

I know this is not simple, but if we take the time now and form a logical deduction to these important values there will be less bitching in the end and everyone will follow the reasoning to the concluded values.

Maybe I should exclude myself from this process , I'm doomed to the scientific method .

[SeaMonkey]

So what is our numerical range of numbering the effectiveness of each attack type....one to four, should it be expanded, we don't have the luxury of knowing the other gameunits' values.

I'm beginning to think that this process is an exercise in futility without SC2 mechanics fully appreciated.

[SeaMonkey]

Okay, here are my initial starting values for a generic CAG(carrier) attacks. SA and TA at 1..all nations.

NA at 4 for Allies, 3 for Axis.

RA = 2 for everyone, reason for 2 is unlike SA and TA targets most strategical resources can't run for cover.

CA is 4(Allies), it is essentially a naval target, so 3 for the Axis also.

UA, even though this is a naval target, subs are not bound by the two dimensions the ocean surface plane represents, they can dive, the third dimension to evade attack, they are also usually smaller, therefor 3 for Allies, 2 for Axis.

[SeaMonkey]

Since we are talking about initial historical configurations, I'm going to use the most effective airforce at the time, the Luftwaffe, for my orientation.

In 1939 around September, the Luftwaffe contained approximately 3000 aircraft of all types. In SC (Fall Weiss) we had 3 AFs, which is 1000 per AF.

According to my sources, 1125 single-engine fighters of which 870 were serviceable, 194 twin-e fighters-141 serviceable, 384 dive-bomber/ground attack aircraft-267 serviceable, and 1213 bombers of which 1014 were serviceable. There were also 552 transports.

I'm looking for affirmation here, DD. Are transports represented by the Bomber unit in SC2?

So in essence if you are taking into account the true effectiveness of the attack values, only 2292 aircraft were available that could make attacks and a thousand of those were fighter types.

Anyone want to comment on the effectiveness of strafing(fighter attacks) on the target types represented in SC2?

So my math simply states that there were 1281 true attacking type aircraft able to deliver explosive ordinance represented in SC as 3 AFs.

Are we beginning to form a picture of how those aircraft and types are divided into our new SC2 AF and Bomber units.

It seems to me Germany will begin with 2 AFs and 2 Bombers, representing approximately 500-600 aircraft each. My mind is now comparing that number to the CAG number. I am also getting a picture of what AFs and Bombers should represent as far as aircraft types.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

At the risk of introducing a cluttered map and extra

micromanagement, would the introduction of tactical

bombers as a 3rd kind of air unit improve things?

If this has already been discussed then nevermind,

but it would have several advantages: the tac bombers

would be free to support the troops (defensively

too somehow?) while the fighters did cap and

intercepts, and the big buffs plastered cities and

helped out in attacking ground troops. Then we

could give different capabilities to both kinds of

bomber, kind of a rock/paper/scissors thing.

[JerseyJohn]

Lars

A great site! You're right, I did go there and wander around for hours.

Aside from the treasure chest of information on aircraft and missions, and specific histories, I found many of the personal notes about members fathers and grandfathers to have been especially interesting, good reading. :cool:

-- I think I missed the mining thread, but it sounds interesting.

SeaMonkey,

I admire your methodology and the care you're taking in formulating the basis for your decisions. Also, I think what you're writing has great value for all WWII historically based scenarios.

But I have to admit I think we're all seeing this in slightly different ways that, cumulatively, end up being very significant.

My own basis isn't seeing it as nation specific but more in general terms for future scenario design.

I've been trying to view it as all things being equal in terms of weapons systems, what kind of aircraft (broad categories -- heavy bombers, medium bombers, tactical bombers) would perform in what way against each specific type of target.

My reasoning is geared more toward creating scenarios that might have little or nothing to do with nation specific WWII historical aircraft but rather on the overal grouping (4 engine, large 2, small 2, single engine -- all viewed as bombers).

So we'd be able to come to a consensus of opinion on, say, Strategic Bombers (or medium, or tactical) are this good against this type of target (1-4) and this bad against this other type of target (1-4).

Hypothetically, a scenario might be based upon the Luftwaffe without Udet's doctrine that all bombers had to dive. It was that doctrine that doomed Germany's heavy bomber program by the mid-1930s and set the Luftwaffe into it's flying artillery function. Then, when there was no more land to conquer in 1940, the rude realization came that it was incapable of conducting independent strategic warfare.

A similar case can be made for each of the other nations, i.e. things like Britain pursueing it's early edge in jet research (it possessed the only jet engine in 1928 but decided it was too heavy to ever function in an aircraft). That sort of thing, but to do so I think we first need to agree on the comparative -- general -- capabilities of each of the two large categories: strategic bombers vs tactical.

There were so many different types of medium bombers that they'd need to be seen as part of both strategic bomber fleets and air fleets.

John DiFool the 2nd

If we extend it to include three types, presumably we're getting into purely tactical aircraft such as straffing planes, which were really fighters. I think it works better in game terms to assume the following unit types:

Strategic Bomber Units ... Consist primarily of (1) heavy four engined bombers such as the Lancaster, B-17, B-29 and all other superheavy aircraft intended for high altitude dropping of heavy bombloads primarily on Economic and / or Industrial targets. (2) Large class two engine medium bombers such as B-24s and B-25s capable of both, strategic roles and also attacks against enemy ground/naval units, though that might not have been the function they were designed for. This unit would have a much greater range than air fleets but with inherant weaknesses when unescorted.

Air Fleets ... Consist primarily of smaller medium bombers, such as those possessed by Germany (Heinkels, Dornier, Messerschmidt two engine types ...) on the large end with dive bombers and multi purpose ground attack aircraft on the smaller end. Fighter aircraft, in both escort and interceptor roles, would be a major part of this type of unit.

[SeaMonkey]

I understand your perspective perfectly John, as it was mine for SC. What I'm trying to do is create a new philosophy for SC2 air units, forgetting about the way SC1 Strategic Bombers should have operated.

As DD and Bill have stated, there are no more strategic bombers, just bombers, that includes those 4 engine behemoths.

Our difference is the allocation of the different aircraft types to essentially only two categories, AFs and Bombers.

I view AFs as predominately fighter types, shorter ranges, lighter payloads mixed in with ground attack aircraft and yes some dive bombers like the Ju87B. Their attack values dictated by bombloads, weapon calibres, rapid firing cannon and rockets.

On the other hand Bombers are everything else. Longer range(Ju87D) ground attack aircraft, dive and torpedo bombers, two, three and four engine level bombers.

There are other things to consider, such as doctrine, air force philosophy and organization and interaction with other armed services. These intangibles make the values nation specific.

For example; UA attack, I believe UK/USA bombers would have the highest(4)since they are traditional maritime powers that fought the German submarine menace in WW1. Even though the experience wasn't so air oriented they have a propensity for doing it.

Another, since we have carrier attack CA, I believe again that the UK/USA CAGs should have the highest attack value 4, which they probably would never use, but there is this CV thing that carrier pilots have for their opponents' CVs. The WA(western allies) naval pilots receive more intense training in attacking naval vessels, there is more orientation to this doctrine than what we see from the Axis.

Sure there are some Axis, specifically German pilots, that are very good at dive bombing naval vessels, but what are their numbers when faced with the numbers the WAs field. And how many WA pilots have at least some naval training, like navigating in open waters, compared to Axis pilots.

Its like we have always discussed the Axis are land powers, the WA naval. The values should respect these historical details even though we have to be abstract.

[SeaMonkey]

John, I am considering these values only as a starting consensus for the historical "Fall Weiss" campaign.

For customs, like we will be creating, all original values are off.

We could have any TO&E we can dream up for the two types, but for the historical beginning i have changed my perspective for SC2 to Fighters(AFs) and Bombers. That's as simple as I can be.

[SeaMonkey]

To carry this further here are my proposed values for NA. Mind you, the philosophy is Fighters and Bombers, not exclusively fighters for AFs.

As it is now, all are AFs/Bmbr= 2/4

Germany AF/Bmbr=3/3, because they have the Ju87B in the AF group and the D model in the Bmbrs.

Italy 2/3, USSR 2/2

UK/USA 2/4, the bombers have the greatest allocation of naval attack aircraft and the doctrine to apply them. To my knowledge the WAs fighter types(AFs) weren't tremendously successful at disabling naval vessels. Maybe the Mosquito or Hurricane, or perhaps the P-38 had some measure of success. The Black Widow and Tempest didn't turn up until 1944.

[Slapaho]

Personally I think the removal of 'Bombers' from the unit list would be better for the game. You can invest MPP's in a strategic bombing campaign, and use tech advancements to modify the base figures (have the USA start at tech level 3 for example). The impact of strategic bombing will be less obvious to the person bombing (the enemy MPP's will be affected and therefore the person being bombed will know the exact effect). The effects of strategic bombing should be dual, firstly there is an immediate impact loss of MPP's of the enemy and also a cummulative effect which reduces the enemies base MPP production. To repair the cumulative effect will cost MPP's, so for every 1 base MPP lost would cost 2 to repair.

To try and intercept the bombers I would also make this like a tech with an investment into it modified by the level of aircraft tech the country has. So if you are getting pounded by startegic air attacks you can start to take counter measures.

Anyway, basically imho I think remove bombers from the game in terms of game pieces

[Ottosmops]

Desert Dave wrote

2) And, let's assume the CA's and BB's have an Air and Bomber defense value of "2."

JerseyJohn wrote

a) SA= Soft Attack ... 2 / 3

TA= Tank Attack ... 2 / 3

(... these 2 comprising the TAC component)

c) NA= Naval Attack ... 1 / 3

d) RA= Strategic Attack ... 4 / 2

e) CA= Carrier Attack ... 1 / 3

f) UA= Sub Attack ... 3 / 2

Edwin P. wrote

Bomber/Fighter

a) SA= Soft Attack ..... 1 / 2

TA= Armor Attack .... 1 / 2

c) NA= Naval Attack ... 1 / 3

d) RA= Strategic Attack ... 4 / 1

e) CA= Carrier Attack ... 1 / 2

f) UA= Sub Attack ... 4 / 2 (1?)

Shouldn't the attack values of the bombers and air fleets be larger then the defense values of the ships? :confused:

Otherwise it would be unreasonable to attack naval targets with aircraft, considering the loss of MPPs.

Of course I don't know the costs of the units, and I assume all other values, such as strength, readiness and experience to be equal.

[Desert Dave]

At the risk of introducing a cluttered map and extra

micromanagement, would the introduction of tactical

bombers as a 3rd kind of air unit improve things?

JdF2,

It might, but it's not what we got.

We have:

1) Air Fleets

(... which includes TAC)

2) Bombers

(... which includes Strat AND Naval, dive or torpedo)

So?

What ratings would you give?

Here, I'll reprint the categories

__________________________________

a) SA= Soft Attack

TA= Tank Attack

(... these 2 comprising the TAC component)

c) NA= Naval Attack

d) RA= Strategic Attack

e) CA= Carrier Attack

f) UA= Sub Attack

______________________

And, Bill's earlier numbers, IE, what it is as of now:

______________________

SC2

SA TA NA RA CA UA

Air Fleet 2 2 2 1 2 2

Bombers 1 1 4 4 4 4

Carrier 1 1 4 1 4 4

__________________________________

OK, we only have FOUR entries so far (... well, 3.379572, counting SM, BUT I'm pretty sure he'll GET there! LOL! JK! SM! JK! Great analysis!)

Speaking of which... where are ALL the others?

Wagner! Get in here! You know these sorts of things, AND have benefit of working the numbers in that other WW-2 GS game!

Bill 101, Waltero, Zapp, Liam AND!

ANYBODY else I didn't yet mention!

Let's have yer take on this, see, you can't have a proper AVERAGE kind of consensus from the forum unless there are, oh, AT LEAST a quorum of 9 or 10 inputs.

Get the cobwebs out, let's hear 'em!

[Desert Dave]

Shouldn't the attack values of the bombers and air fleets be larger then the defense values of the ships?

OM,

[... cool, I got relaxed just saying that mantra)

Well, it should be higher for the NAVAL bombers but NOT for the Air Fleets.

Which aren't designed or indoctrinated to attack ships or subs.

Having equal - 2 VS 2 for AF vs Ships WOULD indeed make of it an un-even encounter, a kind of... "desperation sortie" and that's the whole idea.

Requires the GP (... IE, "game player") to use the units that ARE meant to attack the ships.

The Carriers and the dive/torpedo bombers, as now listed and contained WITHIN the category of plain old "bombers."

Now, where are YOUR ratings, all other things being equal?

And, we don't need EXACTITUDE... that's for them Cats that land craft on other planets.

And, cost will be appropriate as to job performance, IE, we are more EQUALLY dividing the responsibilities in SC-2 (... I did mention that BOTH of these units would cost less than before)

INSTEAD of having the Air Fleet do EVERYTHING, which IMHO is a better way to go. :cool:

[ December 11, 2005, 05:26 AM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ]

[Edwin P.]

1) Air Fleets

(... which includes TAC)

2) Bombers

(... which includes Strat AND Naval, dive or torpedo)

If Air Fleets, don't include Naval bombers and bomber fleets do, perhaps the only change I would make is to reduce the Air Fleet Attack Value against subs to (1), as they can't hit what they can't see.

As for the low carrier SA and TA strength that is understandable as Carrier fleets were much reduced in size and striking power when compared to land based air units.

[JerseyJohn]

The big change I'd make is to have Naval bombers and definitely torpedo planes / dive bombers considered as part of the air fleets and not bomber command.

The range difference is irreconcilable, they can only be figured as tactical weapons, never in a strategic sense.

For me this in itself almost ruins the entire air unit concept as stated here.

[SeaMonkey]

The last thing I want to do is confuse this issue, but I have to bring up that we are missing a very important parameter from this list, Air Attack(AA).

So DD and Bill, what's the deal? We had this value for all units in SC1, is it defunct in SC2?

Don't you think this is an important entry for our air units? If we are examining the air units' values in relation to the TO&E guidelines set forth, I think everyones input would be valuable in ascertaining this parameter.

[SeaMonkey]

JJ has a very valid point here. I have all the major aircraft types from all the belligerents used in WW2 in a table format and classed in their different roles/classes.

Their armaments, ranges, numbers produced, speeds, payloads, etc, and I'm telling you they cover all the ranges.

Let's take Germany for instance, aircraft used for Dive, Torpedo, and Ground Attack.

1. FW190, range 330 miles, max bombs 500lb, 2x20mm cannon and 2x7.9mm mg.

2. HS129B-2, rng 430, mb 770lbs, variety 20mm, 30mm, 37mm cannons, & 2x7.9mm mg.

3. Ju87B,1&2, 490 miles, 1100lb bombs, 3x7.9mm mg.

4. Ju87D-1, 950 miles, 4000lb, 3x7.9mm mg.

This is why I split the B and D models in the NA model.

UK has ranges of 510 miles(Typhoon) to 1600 miles(Beaufourt Mk1)

USA...1100(Dauntless) to 2300(Vultee Vengeance).

USSR...475(Sturmovik) to 930(Petlyakov Pe-2)

Now if you take the Heinkels(111) and Dorniers(217E) that JJ referred to in his above post and put them in the AF(TAC) category(they are bombers in my list), then you have aircraft ranges of 1200 to 1740 miles respectively.

Here is the unfortunate thing, you have two SC2 air units, AFs and Bombers, with a wide variety of ranges and weapons systems, not to mention the ability to accomplish multi-roles.

They can both have different ranges and values for a variety of parameters and they can be nation specific. This is why I'm saying this takes careful thought.

There has to be a priority basis for allocating the different aircraft types, either the definition that DD and JJ(both different) have given us, or it will be the range parameter, or something else. Just remember the priority parameter will in no way be exact.

[Desert Dave]

The big change I'd make is to have Naval bombers and definitely torpedo planes / dive bombers considered as part of the air fleets and not bomber command.

JJ,

Then - and tell me if I am mistaken, but what you want is to have the SAME schematic as in SC-1, where the Air Fleet has three-fold abilities.

1) As Fighter and Interceptor.

2) As TAC or ground support unit.

3) As Naval Bomber.

Leaving us with, the SAME as what we had before, IE, the "Stategic Bomber,"

With, essentially, ONE capability.

Attacking resources.

So the Air Fleet should therefore COST a lot more, since it is designated for more functions?

Would we not then have the same "super Air unit" as before?

That dominating Queen of the battle-board?

Would very many then complain! that the Air Fleet is just too all-powerful... once again?

One thing that DIVIDING the capabilities would do is... not only make it more likely that the Bomber would be bought and used,

But also PREVENT research gains for only the ONE type of unit... allowing domination of the air wars. IF you are forunate in that research category.

If you have functions divided between 2 units, then it is much more likely that the GP will achieve gains in one or the other,

Which in turn makes for a more flexible and variable game.

So. I ask this?

IF the range factor for Bombers could be reduced against NAVAL targets, but remain the same for long-range bombardment of resources, would you feel the same way about it?

[Desert Dave]

Here is the unfortunate thing, you have two SC2 air units, AFs and Bombers, with a wide variety of ranges and weapons systems, not to mention the ability to accomplish multi-roles.

They can both have different ranges and values for a variety of parameters and they can be nation specific. This is why I'm saying this takes careful thought.

Well, SM, the thing is... we could do that for EVERY single combat unit that we now have.

Different ranges, or AP's, different attack-ability, different thickness of armor for the different tank models, and on and on.

As of now, Hubert has decided on having just TWO air unit types.

Air Fleets, and Bombers.

Whether that would change, I have no way of knowing.

Assuming that it doesn't, then we are discussing (... which is ALWAYS a good thing; I am wondering where are ALL those others who usually have a LOT to say?) how BEST to SUGGEST

Some better ways to implement this.

Could the CTV's (... "combat target values" for those who haven't been aboard for very long) be tweaked to make for a game that MOST folks would prefer?

Hubert does indeed read and listen to the suggestions, so maybe EVERYONE should pitch in their 2 cents while they got a shot at it.