Minor irritant – the Peripatetic RCAF Bomber

[Ludi1867]

In previous SC2 editions the RCAF bomber that arrives in the Allied order of battle is not allowed to forward deploy outside North America. Yet in SC2PT “Operation Z” the RCAF bomber can be found in New Guinea, Samoa or almost any place at all. This is highly unrealistic from a historical perspective, and – given the general play balance in the scenario that favours the Allies – makes no sense from a game design perspective.

The RCAF did participate in the Aleutians campaign – a much subordinate to the US part, to be sure – and late in the war 2 transport squadrons were sent to SE Asia. As the war in Europe ended plans to prepare a Heavy Bomber force for Pacific Operations were being worked on, but the war in Japan ended before much happened in this respect.

So why is the RCAF bomber group not confined to North America in SC2PT? There is neither historical nor play balance reason to suggest that it should be allowed to be deployed as desired in the Pacific.

The RCAF Bomber should be confined to North America.

[Bill101]

Hi Ludi

I've also been thinking about this and I've had an idea to resolve this which I'm going to test out.

Thanks for mentioning it!

Bill

[Happycat]

The RCAF Bomber should be confined to North America.

Why?

The balance in the game is not that bad, and since there are already unrealistic things going on, such as amphibious invasions of India, American aircraft able to be deployed to India (beyond the historical such as 7th Bomb Gp), why worry about the pathetic little RCAF bomber. I'm using it in the Pacific, and I have to tell you---it's not a game breaker.

What is a game breaker is deploying four or five Marine tactical air to India. And in fact, until such time as the Japanese player land-locks China, massive numbers of American air units can be deployed there as well. Conversely, the Japanese player can pretend that the outer islands don't exist, and place all of his air units in China and beat them into submission fairly rapidly.

I'm all in favour of historical accuracy, but this game does not necessarily put that concept first and foremost.

[abukede]

Actually I used the canadian bomber to great effect in the game. Usually by the conclusion of the game I have him up to at least 4 experience. It's a great unit to use for eyes as well.

[Ludi1867]

Hi Happycat

You are right that there are some other aspects that are also possible historical anomalies, and that this one is minor (note the title of the thread!). It is certainly not a gamebreaker, but it is definitely historically inaccurate. The solution I proposed may be awkward, however, and there may be better ways to address the problem within the existing game system, as is currently done with similar units.

What similar units? Historically, the RCAF bomber is analagous to the US west coast militia - it was very much intended for the defence of the west coast of North America ONLY (the deployment of some RCAF units to the Alaskan campaign actually proved politically difficult in Canada). In the game, the US west coast militia only appears if the Japanese start operating close to North America (not sure how close, it has only happened once so far for me). So rather then restricting the RCAF bomber to North America, another approach would be to keep it "hidden" via the scripts (as is the case with US militia units) until Japanese actions trigger it.

Even if the RCAF bomber remains hidden unless provoked into the game by Japanese aggressive actions, it is still possible to deploy Canadian units into many places in the Pacific. The Allied player (under the British forces) has the option to build many different units (although not bombers). I do not see this option being exercised very often - there are usually much better ways to spend British MPPs - but this is certainly consistent with historical reality. With enough pressure Canada could have deployed units into the Pacific, but the main theatre of operations for Canada was Europe, and the only way this would have changed would have been if Britain had been willing to spend quite a bit to change things. And Britain had generally better options to spend its scarce resources on British, Indian or Australian units.

So, yes, this is minor, and it is not a game breaker, but the current depiction of RCAF bombers being easily deployed willy-nilly around the Pacific is completely historically incorrect - and reasonably easily fixed. And since it is not a gamebreaker, why not fix something that is both small and completely wrong?

[Happycat]

Hi Happycat

You are right that there are some other aspects that are also possible historical anomalies, and that this one is minor (note the title of the thread!). It is certainly not a gamebreaker, but it is definitely historically inaccurate. The solution I proposed may be awkward, however, and there may be better ways to address the problem within the existing game system, as is currently done with similar units.

What similar units? Historically, the RCAF bomber is analagous to the US west coast militia - it was very much intended for the defence of the west coast of North America ONLY (the deployment of some RCAF units to the Alaskan campaign actually proved politically difficult in Canada). In the game, the US west coast militia only appears if the Japanese start operating close to North America (not sure how close, it has only happened once so far for me). So rather then restricting the RCAF bomber to North America, another approach would be to keep it "hidden" via the scripts (as is the case with US militia units) until Japanese actions trigger it.

Even if the RCAF bomber remains hidden unless provoked into the game by Japanese aggressive actions, it is still possible to deploy Canadian units into many places in the Pacific. The Allied player (under the British forces) has the option to build many different units (although not bombers). I do not see this option being exercised very often - there are usually much better ways to spend British MPPs - but this is certainly consistent with historical reality. With enough pressure Canada could have deployed units into the Pacific, but the main theatre of operations for Canada was Europe, and the only way this would have changed would have been if Britain had been willing to spend quite a bit to change things. And Britain had generally better options to spend its scarce resources on British, Indian or Australian units.

So, yes, this is minor, and it is not a game breaker, but the current depiction of RCAF bombers being easily deployed willy-nilly around the Pacific is completely historically incorrect - and reasonably easily fixed. And since it is not a gamebreaker, why not fix something that is both small and completely wrong?

Excellent analysis. I enjoyed reading this, and especially the part about the RCAF units deployed to the Alaskan area of operations. My stepfather, rest his soul, served in the RCAF and was stationed in some forsaken part of Alaska from 1942-44. He said that after his time there, he forever hated the song "White Christmas"

You are right of course about the nature of the RCAF bomber unit. The bombers Canada deployed on the west coast were mainly Bolingbrokes (Blenheim IV's). You might enjoy the article at this link:

http://www.rcaf.com/aircraft/bombers/bolingbroke/serials.php?name=bolingbroke

Thank you clarifying what was behind your original comment.

[Ludi1867]

Hi Happycat

Glad that my clarification helped clear things up. I appreciate the link - I was aware the Bolingbroke was the main bomber deployed to the Aleutians, but I had not looked it up on the net, so a quick reference was handy. I had a chance to look at a Bolingbroke a few years back at the National Aviation Museum in Ottawa. The Bolingbroke was not one of the planes out in the main area, but sort of stuck toward the back (it might have been one of the open houses they hold on Canada Day, which provide much better access to a lot of the collection than during 'normal' days I went to the Aviation Museum a fair amount when I lived in the area). The old Bolingbroke was not all that impressive to look at, especially when there were bigger aircraft to compare it to!

My main source of information was Volume II of the official history of the RCAF (The Creation of a National Air Force by WAB Douglas). The Pacific war is not all that big a part of this book (a few more than 60 pages out of 600 or so), but it is nicely covered and does give a pretty good idea of what happened.

[Happycat]

Hi Happycat

Glad that my clarification helped clear things up. I appreciate the link - I was aware the Bolingbroke was the main bomber deployed to the Aleutians, but I had not looked it up on the net, so a quick reference was handy. I had a chance to look at a Bolingbroke a few years back at the National Aviation Museum in Ottawa. The Bolingbroke was not one of the planes out in the main area, but sort of stuck toward the back (it might have been one of the open houses they hold on Canada Day, which provide much better access to a lot of the collection than during 'normal' days I went to the Aviation Museum a fair amount when I lived in the area). The old Bolingbroke was not all that impressive to look at, especially when there were bigger aircraft to compare it to!

My main source of information was Volume II of the official history of the RCAF (The Creation of a National Air Force by WAB Douglas). The Pacific war is not all that big a part of this book (a few more than 60 pages out of 600 or so), but it is nicely covered and does give a pretty good idea of what happened.

I'd love to go see the Nation Aviation Museum. At least living in Fredericton, I'm closer than I used to be (Victoria).

I haven't seen a Bolingbroke, other than the one that was fished out of the water a few years ago near Sidney. I think the museum there is trying to restore it.

At the same museum, several years ago a B-17 and HE111 came in for a two day show. The Heinkel was acquired from Spain, and had originally been a gift of Hitler's to Franco.

Anyway, it was fun clambering around in both planes, the Flying Fort is very compact inside, and the HE111 even more so. When I climbed up through the belly hatch into the Heinkel, I stood up and promptly whacked my head on the butt of a machine gun installed for the dorsal position. I bled like a stuck pig, but still enjoyed the tour.

I guess this is all off-topic, but what the heck, it's YOUR topic

[fortycreek]

Great off topic commentary! I live in near Hamilton, Ontario and see the old restored RCAF Lancaster fly by my house requarily. A beautiful site. It sends shivers up my spine every time I see her. My grandfather was a flight instructor for the RCAF and I love hearing his stories......

[Ludi1867]

Hi Happycat and fortycreek

I guess we are WAY off topic now, but I do appreciate your comments. In any event, I’m not sure there is anything more useful to say about that minor issue with the RCAF unit in the game.

I have seen the Hamilton Lancaster – but usually it’s only on TV doing flyovers at a TiCats football game! The Lancaster display they have at the National Aviation Museum is quite interesting – they have part of a fuselage set up with crew inside and a walkway alongside the cockpit, with clear areas to see inside – but its not the whole plane and it is most definitely not flying! It certainly does show how cramped these aircraft were, though.

I have not seen a He-111 yet, Happycat, but I did see a B-17 at yet another great warbird collection last fall – in Palm Springs, CA. The air museum there has quite a good collection, especially of Pacific warbirds, which is very appropriate to this forum, at least! If you ever get a chance to go to the area, I would definitely recommend a visit.

And both of you aren’t that far from Ottawa – Hamilton is only about five or six hours away by car, and Fredericton is about fifteen (I used to drive from Halifax to Kingston in a day in my younger years – Fredericton is closer to Ottawa than that!). The National Aviation Museum really is quite worthwhile.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Back on topic-the game likely needs a sort of cheap recon/naval bomber unit. Just about every Pacific Island had air assets of one sort of another, but can you afford to buy a whole bunch of SC2 air units and do the same?

[SeaMonkey]

Great suggestion John. This would be one of those assets that would get attached to the garrisoning unit, like AT, Art, AA, Engineers, etc.

Something like the Aichi E13A1a seaplane, 1128 nautical mile range, that were stationed all over the Pacific islands. Another reason to maintain a presence in the outer islands.

[Ludi1867]

Hi John

Not sure if this is getting the topic back on track, or just a new – and very interesting – topic. Reconnaissance is a vital part of naval warfare. You have to find something to kill it. It is also a very difficult process, and there was generally never enough search assets available. Seamonkey notes one of the aircraft the Japanese used for recce. There were others, such as the Kawanishi flying boat (Mavis was the Allied code name, I think). The Allies used PBY flying boats extensively, as well as 4 engine bombers when available.

The rub is that it takes a LOT of aircraft to do thorough searches of large areas. An 1100 mile nautical range sounds impressive, but the search radius for such an aircraft is much less, perhaps a maximum of 400 miles or so for a reasonably narrow search. To do a 360 search would take a fair number of aircraft. SC mechanics only give you a radius based on range, which can become quite large with long range research, more than 8 squares for some units. But even 8 squares means a LOT of area – 400 miles in all directions. So making the capability integral to all garrisons is probably too simplistic and unreasonable. Search assets were usually tasked to sectors as required, and a couple of recce units, represented by a flying boat for the Japanese and a PBY for the Allies, are more reasonable in the context of SC2PT. More than that and the advantages of these units become potentially overwhelming. The units would also have to have negligible attack. This is not to say that these aircraft were incapable of conducting deadly attacks. Rather, the nature of recce seldom provides good opportunities for attacks. Recce aircraft work either alone or (for carrier scouts during the war) perhaps as a duo. That is the only way that significant amounts of water could be searched. But effective attacks usually require mass, so these units would probably have very low, or no, attack values.

Anyway, an interesting idea, and certainly closer to track than discussion of aviation museums!

[Happycat]

I suppose that we could look at intelligence as an abstract form of reconnaissance, and certainly the higher the level researched, the better it gets. But the Japanese can only research to level 2, while the US can get to 5. It might be interesting to give the Japanese the same (or close to same) potential, and see if researching that gives the Japanese the desired results (i.e. more spotting of enemy ships).