? :-D
Wow! According to the poll, there is quite a wide range of opinions on how jet fighters should work. I didn’t expect such results!
Hey IL, I did my homework after your first reply to this post. I indeed overlooked a few details regarding jet fighters, and it seems that you were right about a few things. However, I would like to point out that you are sorely mistaken when it comes to the British Meteor. The V-1s were a massive headache for the British government, and they input massive amounts of resources to counter them. You rightly pointed out that piston driven airplanes were utilized to combat the flying bombs, but with great difficulty. The V-1’s flew much faster than any propeller craft, so the airplanes had to be heavily modified and commit to unique maneuvers in order to nudge the V-1’s of course or to shot them down. Both tactics proved risky and difficult. Thus, in an effort to improve the defense against these weapons, the British designated the Meteor to help intercept V-1’s. Consequently, in the summer of 1944, the jet aircraft saw combat in that endeavor. While the Meteor didn’t participate in the defense from the Vengeance weapons for long due to its late introduction, it was still used nonetheless.
You made it seem that the only way to shoot down the V-1 was by the Meteor. RAF employed all sorts of means to do this with success and since they didn’t want to have their new jet crash over france and dissected by the Luftwaffe they did employ them as other means to shoot at V-1, but their is no link from the jet plane in terms of this duty any more than other means:
http://www.patriotfiles.com/index.php?name=Sections&req=viewarticle&artid=8973&page=1
Countermeasures
The British defence against the V-1 was codenamed Operation Diver. Anti-aircraft guns were redeployed in several movements: first in mid-June 1944 from positions on the North Downs to the south coast of England; then a cordon closing the Thames Estuary to attacks from the east. In September 1944 a new linear defence line was formed on the coast of East Anglia, and finally in December there was a further layout along the Lincolnshire-Yorkshire coast. The deployments were prompted by the ever-changing approach tracks of the missiles which were in turn influenced by the Allies’ advance through Europe.Anti-aircraft gunners found that such small, fast-moving targets were difficult to hit. At first, it took, on average, 2500 shells to bring down a single V-1. The average altitude of the V-1, between 2,000 and 3,000 feet (610 and 915 m), was in a narrow band between the optimum engagement heights for light and heavy anti-aircraft weapons. These low heights defeated the rate of traverse of the standard British QF 3.7 inch mobile gun, and static gun installations with faster traverses had to be built at great cost.
Barrage balloons were also deployed against the missiles, but the leading edges of the V-1’s wings were equipped with balloon cable cutters and fewer than 300 V-1s are known to have been destroyed by hitting cable.
Fighter defences had also been mobilized as part of Operation Diver. Most fighter aircraft were too slow to catch a V-1 unless they had a useful height advantage. Even when intercepted, the V-1 was difficult to bring down. Machine gun bullets had little effect on the sheet steel structure, and 20 mm cannon shells had a shorter range, which meant that detonating the warhead could destroy the intercepting fighter as well.
When the attacks began in mid-June of 1944 there were fewer than 30 Tempests in 150 Wing to defend against them. Few other aircraft had the low-altitude performance to be effective. Initial attempts to intercept V-1s were often unsuccessful but interdiction techniques were rapidly developed. These included the hair-raising but effective method of using the airflow over an interceptor’s wing to raise one wing of the Doodlebug, by sliding the interceptor’s wingtip under the V-1’s wing and bringing it to within six inches (15 cm) of the lower surface. Done properly, the airflow would tip the V-1’s wing up, overriding the buzz bomb’s gyros and sending it into an out of control dive. At least three V-1s were destroyed this way.
The Tempest wing was built up to over 100 aircraft by September; Griffon-engined Spitfire XIVs and Mustangs were polished and tuned to make them almost fast enough, and during the short summer nights the Tempests shared defensive duty with Mosquitoes. Specially modified P-47 Thunderbolts (P-47Ms) with half their fuel tanks, half their 0.5 in (12.7 mm) machine guns, all external fittings and all their armour plate removed were also pressed into service against the V-1 menace. There was no need for radar ? at night the V-1’s engine could be seen from 16 km (10 miles) or more away
In daylight, V-1 chases were chaotic and often unsuccessful until a special defence zone between London and the coast was declared in which only the fastest fighters were permitted. Between June and mid-August 1944, the handful of Tempests shot down 638 flying bombs. One Tempest pilot, Joseph Berry, downed fifty-nine V-1s, another 44, and Wing Commander Roland Beamont destroyed 31.
Next most successful was the Mosquito (428), Spitfire XIV (303), and Mustang, (232). All other types combined added 158. The still-experimental jet-powered Gloster Meteor, which was rushed half-ready into service to fight the V-1s, had ample speed but suffered from a readily-jammed cannon and accounted for only 13.
By mid-August 1944, the threat was all but overcome ? not by aircraft, but by the sudden arrival of two enormously effective electronic aids for anti-aircraft guns, both developed in the USA by the Rad Lab: radar-based automatic gunlaying, and above all, the proximity fuse. Both of these had been requested by AA Command and arrived in numbers, starting in June 1944, just as the guns reached their free-firing positions on the coast.
So your plane shot down 13 V-1’s and hardly worth notation as any pertinent influence on the matter. Four other planes proved greater worth in this capacity.
Ok! i just dont want fighters immune to aa guns 5 d or 4 attack i dont care as long as never immune
Thanks for the support Craig but I took no offence to any of it. It’s hard to catch in text but I just took it as friendly sarcasm…its all cool. :-D
But that entire earlier…lengthy…opinion of mine was partly done to prove a point… “T M I”. (Too much information) :?
I dont see A&A taking into account individual specific air craft, ships, tanks or artillery pieces. As I understand it, each unit is a conglomeration of THAT ASPECT of warfare during WW2. A tank unit represents EVERY tank ever created and used during the war years, as does a fig, bomber, art, transport, sub, etc…
Just because the units are molded in different aircraft, or ships or tanks of the day…which is cool :-D…they don’t work differently. The molds of the Zero work just the same as the mold of the Spitfire and the mold of the Sherman tanks works just the same as the mold of the Panther tanks when it comes down to the gaming mechanics…it’s a streamlined game…no charts, tables adds, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc…just one d6 for each unit.
So IMO, advancements are just an improvement to that ENTIRE ASPECT of warfare. A jet fig is just a faster fig. A heavy bomber is jsut a bomber that can carry more bombs. And since each unit only uses a single d6 there is only so much “improvement” that can be done to any one unit, one die point (17% at a time) Alot of those “real world details” are bound to be lost on a single d6…but at the same time, I’m really glad that only a d6 is used…the game takes a long time to play as it is…could you imagine if each unit had a 5 page list of rules for it…SHNICKY would that take for ever to play. (unfortunatley i have to go to work every day instead of playing this cool game all day everyday!) :cry:
Builder chris i am not after you at all.
I just do not want immune to aa guns if anything else happens i will be cool with that but immunity! (not how i take stuff)
I did support my points. I also took a ‘swipe’ ( to use a Gordon Ramsey phrase) but it was really a minor point among a much larger body of supporting points.
OK Builder Chris i think we both know i meant no harm with the sarcasm. Apologies.
Anyways this poll about jet fighters is everywere not 2 spots are sticking out its unexpectedly almost balanced
Though i will say they will never be immune please do not allow it to be immune comone dice roll 6 its immune 1-5 it is not
“6” no why did it go to 6.
Anyways all i will say voting for immunity to aa guns is horrible thing to do
Greetings,
Great thread.
Excellent delivery and point made by Builder_chris on game pc representation.
Loved how you presented it, nice long delivery to labor the point of complexity.
In spite of your last post Chris; you noted a general abstraction of all FTRS, and Jets represent an improvement for the whole class of the unit.
Let me wave my arms at the sky, having spent most of my adult life with jets.
I could argue a strong technical perspective, I will not take you down the edged path of techno merit. I will provide general strokes, I hope stand out;
item:munitions were the determining offensive punch factor, not much change really.
item:Those early jets had a very limited range, as stated previously.
item:The speed factor, gave the fighter certain immunity against interception, fine for offense.
item:If, given strong offensive value, then the abstraction could reflect a more limited range, move of only 2 spaces, thats not going to be popular.
item:In the defensive role-Dogfighting mainly, poor turn radius (more important then dive speed, IMHO, yes its arguable, jets had good climb rate) and no loitering time (also factor for ground support,)
are strong defensive requirements lacking in jets.
These low defensive values for early jets, argue against a strong defensive abstraction on Tech alone.
Item: Air doctrine was poorly concieved on how to deploy the technology and coordinate, again important factors for area defense
( War college would need several thousand sorties to build a model, each war took time to find a techs place for proper deployment( prime EX:korea-jets evolution.)
Item:This game does not model interception, less house rules.
Extra-Maybe thats the point, the tech could add interception to the game, new tech, new game mech-yea facing complexity again(KISS.)
Sum:Jets are simply not a good defense value for this game, take an offensive abstraction, Larry got it right.
In the end, I agree with IL, jets don’t #$%*belong. Were not a factor for WWII.
added note:
I love those old WWII fighters, those pilots and crews had a special moment in time. You can see it in their eyes today, years later.
To those who fell, I salute.
You know, after all this talk I’ve come to the self realization that ultimately I must agree with IL and Bluestroke when both of them say…
IL…In fact Jets don’t need to be in the game
Bluestroke…jets don’t #$%*belong. Were not a factor for WWII.
Because after about my fifth game or so of getting the jet fig development, I don’t develop jets any more. They never proved to make that much of a difference in the game and they never seemed to be worth the IPC and time it took to get the tech.
Oh, and IL…don’t fret over the earlier sarcasm …the Seabees and civ construction workers (and my wife come to think of it) are full of it :-o (sarcasm that is) :lol:. I guess that’s why it’s no big deal to me. It’s all 8-), besides that’s what makes debates fun… “It’s not personal…its buisness”.
IL…In fact Jets don’t need to be in the game
They are not. They are optional rules.
Exactly they are add ons… Like House rules anyways (immunity never aa gunscan kill jets
