Carrier Fighters & Tac Bombers

[HBG]

I am working on some house rules that represent a shift in technology in carrier Based Aircraft.
I am torn trying to represent the aircraft since fighters will be smaller than tac bombers based on AAA scale.

(revised)

Fighters (Carrier)
1960-F-4 Phantom
1977-F-14 Tomcat
1999 F/A-18 Super Hornet
2015 F/A-35 Lightning II

Tac Bombers (Carrier)
1956 A-7 Corsair II
1969 A-6 Intruder
1983 F/A-18 Hornet
2008 F/A-35 Lightning II

Thoughts?

[knp7765]

I don’t think you need to do this with the planes you have listed. They should be all made the same size or scale. You would have to choose between the smaller fighter size or the larger tac bomber size.
In WW2, there was a great deal of difference between true fighter planes and tactical bombing planes, whether they be torpedo bombers or dive bombers. The two types of planes performed very different jobs.
With the more modern jet planes you have listed, the difference mostly disappears. Pretty much all modern jet planes can perform well in both the fighter and tactical bomber rolls. The one difference I can think of is the A-10 Thunderbolt, which is an excellent ground attack plane but not very good as a fighter. Then again, you don’t have that plane on your lists so that’s probably a moot point.  I don’t know much about the A-7 Corsair II, if it was primarily ground attack or could also perform well as a fighter.
The rest of those planes you listed excelled at both jobs, so you really have both types of planes in a single package.
Again, it would be up to you whether or not to make them the size of fighters or tac bombers, but I think they should all be the same size either way.

[toblerone77]

Have you considered the A-6 Intruder as a Naval TB somewhere in the line-up? Your second line-up looks good but you have four fighters so why not four TB’s? The A-6 is iconic and fits well from the Vietnam to the Gulf War I era nicely.

[HBG]

Fighters (Carrier)
1960-F-4 Phantom
1977-F-14 Tomcat
1999 F/A-18 Super Hornet
2015 F/A-35 Lightning II

Tac Bombers (Carrier)
1956 A-7 Corsair II
1969 A-6 Intruder
1983 F/A-18 Hornet
2008 F/A-35 Lightning II

I revised the list, BUT, since the recent aircraft are multi purpose F-18 and F-35, the need for separation of Fighters and Tac are needed no longer. Thoughts.
Should we make the F-18 & F-35 fighter or Tac size or maybe a in between size? I hate doing another size. Thoughts???

[CWO Marc]

The basic problem you’re describing here (to which, unfortunately, I don’t have any great solutions to suggest) is sometimes called weight/class inflation.  It affects both ships and aircraft, and to some degree it also affects tanks (though in the case of tanks there’s a practical limit on size growth, because once you get over 65-or-so tons, it becomes very difficult for tanks to cross bridges or to travel by railroad).

Weight/class inflation refers to the tendency of warships and warplanes to grow in size and capabilities over the course of time, while still retaining their nominal designation.  The F-15, for example, is an air-superiority fighter, but it’s roughly the size of a WWII medium bomber.  Similarly, there are modern “destroyers” that are the size of WWII cruisers.  And so forth.  So a sculpt set ranging from the 1950s to the present is going to be problematic if the size of the sculpts is intended to reflect the nominal designation of each unit (which is the convention used by the A&A OOB sculpts that represent aircraft and surface-combat ships).  Unfortunately, it would also be problematic (though in a different way) to use the alternate approach of having the sculpts reflect the physical size of each real-world unit: you could end up with a few extremely large units that would look out of place, and unit type differentiation would have to be based on something other than size.

Perhaps the best approach would be to avoid mixing in a single game units from very different decades.  Each decade would have small/medium/large units, and for each decade small medium and large would always more or less correspond to sculpts having uniform sizes of x and y and z…but depending on the decade, a small unit of size x (let’s say, a fighter) would translate into units whose 1950s combat values would be very different from units with 2015 combat values.  (For inspiration, have a look at the scene in the movie The Final Countdown in which a pair of F-14 Tomcats get into a dogfight with a pair of WWII Zeros.  The Tomcats win – to put it mildly.)

[HBG]

@CWO:

The basic problem you’re describing here (to which, unfortunately, I don’t have any great solutions to suggest) is sometimes called weight/class inflation.  It affects both ships and aircraft, and to some degree it also affects tanks (though in the case of tanks there’s a practical limit on size growth, because once you get over 65-or-so tons, it becomes very difficult for tanks to cross bridges or to travel by railroad).

Weight/class inflation refers to the tendency of warships and warplanes to grow in size and capabilities over the course of time, while still retaining their nominal designation.  The F-15, for example, is an air-superiority fighter, but it’s roughly the size of a WWII medium bomber.  Similarly, there are modern “destroyers” that are the size of WWII cruisers.  And so forth.  So a sculpt set ranging from the 1950s to the present is going to be problematic if the size of the sculpts is intended to reflect the nominal designation of each unit (which is the convention used by the A&A OOB sculpts that represent aircraft and surface-combat ships).  Unfortunately, it would also be problematic (though in a different way) to use the alternate approach of having the sculpts reflect the physical size of each real-world unit: you could end up with a few extremely large units that would look out of place, and unit type differentiation would have to be based on something other than size.

Perhaps the best approach would be to avoid mixing in a single game units from very different decades.  Each decade would have small/medium/large units, and for each decade small medium and large would always more or less correspond to sculpts having uniform sizes of x and y and z…but depending on the decade, a small unit of size x (let’s say, a fighter) would translate into units whose 1950s combat values would be very different from units with 2015 combat values.  (For inspiration, have a look at the scene in the movie The Final Countdown in which a pair of F-14 Tomcats get into a dogfight with a pair of WWII Zeros.  The Tomcats win – to put it mildly.)

I think you are missing the point, I do not plan on mixing aircraft from WW2 and Modern.

[knp7765]

If this is a more modern set not meant to be mixed with WW2 era aircraft, then I think you have fixed your problem.

To repeat myself, you do not NEED a tactical bomber unit. All modern jet aircraft can perform both rolls so they should have the capabilities of both. There is no need for a size differential. There is certainly no need for a third size.

Perhaps you should make them all fighter sized. They would be smaller, take up less space in the mold and you could include more other units in the set. Also, they might fit better on the carriers that will come with these planes. You could even include 3 per carrier.

[HBG]

@knp7765:

If this is a more modern set not meant to be mixed with WW2 era aircraft, then I think you have fixed your problem.

To repeat myself, you do not NEED a tactical bomber unit. All modern jet aircraft can perform both rolls so they should have the capabilities of both. There is no need for a size differential. There is certainly no need for a third size.

Perhaps you should make them all fighter sized. They would be smaller, take up less space in the mold and you could include more other units in the set. Also, they might fit better on the carriers that will come with these planes. You could even include 3 per carrier.

I understood you about the dual role and it does not make a difference between a fighter and a Tac in sizing, i can only get some many of those per mold, will not fit more fighters just because they are smaller. Thanks for your input.

[toblerone77]

Coach I would go with the scale you use for tactical bombers. Even though there is no intention to use them with WWII era aircraft, sizing them in the tactical bomber scale provides a more consistent line-up between products. In other words there are many who use HBG pieces for many uses and would like the consistency of scale that HBG provides with your other product’s. IMO it keeps the product line more linear.