[House Rules] Tactical Bombers and their use

@CWO:

@Baron:

Or is it a mix of both, depending of which aircrafts they have under hand?

It was none of the above.  None of the three planes I mentioned were capable of operating from a carrier.  The Catalina was a seaplane: it landed directly on the water and took off directly from the water, and could also operate from land-based runways.  The Wellington and the Liberator were exclusively land-based planes.  Both of them were too big (the Lib was about the size of a B-17 Flying Fortress) and required too much runway length to reach takeoff speed to operate from carriers.  (The Doolittle Raid proved that a Mitchell B-25 medium bomber could, with special training and techniques, take off from a carrier, but that operation was a one-time special case.)  The three aircraft I mentioned operated from bases ashore to do their ASW work.  The Lib was a four-engined bomber, so it can only be regarded (in A&A terms) as a strategic bomber.  The two-engined Wellington was, in my opinion, too big and not fast or nimble enough to be regarded as a tactical bomber – but A&A’s term “tactical bomber” is so vague and broad (and hence unsatisfactory in my opinion) that one could get into endless arguments about what it should and shouldn’t cover. That is a good synopsis.

If the concept you’re interested in pursuing is focussed on pairing TacBombers with carriers for the specific purpose of attacking submarines, the closest real-life parallel I can think of was the use of escort carriers (a.k.a. jeep carriers) in the Battle of the Atlantic.  Both the US and the UK used this approach in the second half of WWII (along with the non-carrier planes I mentioned above) in their fight against the U-boats.  I can’t recall what sorts of planes jeep carriers used for this specific purpose, but as carrier-capable planes they’d be much smaller than a Wellington or a Liberator, and were thus planes which could more credibly be called tactical aircraft.

And by the way, I can’t think of a single WWII example of cruisers and Tac Bombers being paired together for ASW work, so I would recommend dropping that concept.  Unit pairings in land warfare don’t necessarily have equivalent pairings in naval warfare.

Unit pairings in land warfare don’t necessarily have equivalent pairings in naval warfare.

Well from a strategic level a tac bomber game piece functions as a representative of many types of light bomber including torpedo, dive-bomber and tank buster.

Does the Typhoon fit into this description of TcB? I consider the role of the typhoon as a ground attack aircraft that fits into the parameters of what I think the Tactical bomber represents in A&A.

Is their any other type of planes which should be put inside TcB category, besides torpedo, dive-bomber and tank buster?

Does the kind of rockets attack made by typhoon as aircraft tank-destroyer is a paradigm of the coordination between TcB and Tank?
So it should be the first tactical situation we should have in mind when a TcB get A4 from being paired 1:1 with a Tank?

Or is there better depiction with some Stukka dive-bomber with Panzer? Or even T-34 and Sturmovik?

Thanks sharing.

@CWO:

@Baron:

Or is it a mix of both, depending of which aircrafts they have under hand?

It was none of the above. None of the three planes I mentioned were capable of operating from a carrier. The Catalina was a seaplane: it landed directly on the water and took off directly from the water, and could also operate from land-based runways. The Wellington and the Liberator were exclusively land-based planes. Both of them were too big (the Lib was about the size of a B-17 Flying Fortress) and required too much runway length to reach takeoff speed to operate from carriers. (The Doolittle Raid proved that a Mitchell B-25 medium bomber could, with special training and techniques, take off from a carrier, but that operation was a one-time special case.) The three aircraft I mentioned operated from bases ashore to do their ASW work. The Lib was a four-engined bomber, so it can only be regarded (in A&A terms) as a strategic bomber. The two-engined Wellington was, in my opinion, too big and not fast or nimble enough to be regarded as a tactical bomber – but A&A’s term “tactical bomber” is so vague and broad (and hence unsatisfactory in my opinion) that one could get into endless arguments about what it should and shouldn’t cover.

If the concept you’re interested in pursuing is focussed on pairing TacBombers with carriers for the specific purpose of attacking submarines, the closest real-life parallel I can think of was the use of escort carriers (a.k.a. jeep carriers) in the Battle of the Atlantic. Both the US and the UK used this approach in the second half of WWII (along with the non-carrier planes I mentioned above) in their fight against the U-boats. I can’t recall what sorts of planes jeep carriers used for this specific purpose, but as carrier-capable planes they’d be much smaller than a Wellington or a Liberator, and were thus planes which could more credibly be called tactical aircraft.
And by the way, I can’t think of a single WWII example of cruisers and Tac Bombers being paired together for ASW work, so I would recommend dropping that concept. Unit pairings in land warfare don’t necessarily have equivalent pairings in naval warfare.

On Jeep carrier and their planes, here is what I got:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33181.msg1263095#msg1263095

I’m not able to find much about ASW in Pacific against IJN submarines.
Do you have any idea of how they do fight them?
Was it really the same way as in the Atlantic?
Do they rely more on destroyer for antisub patrol, or even USAN submarines?
More on planes: Avenger (or Dauntless?) and/or F4F Wildcat (or F6F-Hellcat)?
If you find some links on the web, I will be very interested.

What you post point is that StB unit were able to hunt and sink submarine. That’d arise another problem of depiction on ASW. I would adress it latter.
I prefer to focus on different way of depicting Fg and TcB in combat situations of WWII.

Thanks,

My main source about F4F Wildcat doing ASW in Atlantic:
http://uboat.net/allies/aircraft/wildcat.htm

@Baron:

Well from a strategic level a tac bomber game piece functions as a representative of many types of light bomber including torpedo, dive-bomber and tank buster.

Does the Typhoon fit into this description of TcB? I consider the role of the typhoon as a ground attack aircraft that fits into the parameters of what I think the Tactical bomber represents in A&A.

Is their any other type of planes which should be put inside TcB category, besides torpedo, dive-bomber and tank buster?

Does the kind of rockets attack made by typhoon as aircraft tank-destroyer is a paradigm of the coordination between TcB and Tank?
So it should be the first tactical situation we should have in mind when a TcB get A4 from being paired 1:1 with a Tank?

Or is there better depiction with some Stukka dive-bomber with Panzer? Or even T-34 and Sturmovik?

Thanks sharing.

To be honest Baron the TB could encompass so many types of aircraft I would recommend going to Wikipedia and look up “list of WWII aircraft”. While I’m not a huge fan of wkiipedia, it will give you a general idea of all the types of aircraft without having to read endless books on the subject. My POV (And more so CWO Marc’s, he’s very knowledgeable) comes from years of personal interest and study of WWII in all it’s aspects.

I’d start with the Wikipedia article and research the categories of the different types of aircraft and then start with reference book. Once you have a consensus of what various types apply to the categories we have represented in A&A it gives you a valuable perspective on what the game and can’t represent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_World_War_II

Have fun.

Ok, I will take a look into it. I’m a neophyte.
But, I’m sure that you have yet made your idea about the main categories, no?
Or, on the other side, what shouldn’t have a plane to be in the Fg category instead of the TcB, according to you?

@Baron:

But, I’m sure that you have yet made your idea about the main categories, no?
Or, on the other side, what shouldn’t have a plane to be in the Fg category instead of the TcB, according to you?

I’m going to go out on a bit of a limb here by proposing my own generic definition of the three aircraft types mentioned in the A&A rules.  It’s a personal definition, so there’s nothing gospel about it, but I hope it will provide you with a useful basis for thinking about these three very broad aircraft types.  And I’ll immediately add these qualifiers: 1) the A&A StBm, TacBm and Ftr categories are in many ways artificial categories created for game purposes; and 2) in the real world of WWII, some aircraft could be seen as fitting a very narrow type but others were very versatile multi-mission aircraft – especially when their model variants are taken into account – which could serve effectively in many roles.

So, with those qualifiers out of the way, here’s how I see those categories.

A fighter is an aircraft whose primary mission is to shoot down other aircraft in air-to-air combat (bombers, other fighters, ground-attack planes, reconnaissance planes, or whatever).  Aircraft well suited to this primary mission are typically fast and maneuverable; fighters with an exceptionally high rate of climb are sometimes described as interceptors.  In WWII, their primary armament for air-to-air combat usually consisted of machine guns and/or small automatic cannons (typically 20mm).  In very, very general terms (since exceptions exist), they tended to be smaller than bombers – though this was sometimes very relative depending on the specific aircraft types being compared.  Fighters tend to be shorter-ranged than bombers: they carry less fuel (to avoid having the excess weight impair their maneuverability), and in active combat they consume fuel at a very high rate because they’re using their engine(s) at full power.  Drop tanks compensate for this fuel problem to some degree.  Fighters can attack ground targets (strafing being one such form of attack), but a fighter which is optimzed for air-to-air combat is not ideal in the ground-attack role, since the sighting mechanisms, the weapons and the aerodynamic characteristics required for the two roles are different. (Basically, air-to-air combat requires high maneuverability at high speeds, while ground-attack missions require high stability and steadiness at low speeds.  A high-performance air-superiority fighter flown at the combat engagement speed of a ground-attack aircraft might very well stall and crash.)

In A&A terms, the way I’d distinguish a tactical bomber from a strategic bomber would be to say that a tactical bomber has the primary mission of attacking highly specific (and often moving) targets on the ground or in the water, while a strategic bomber has the primary mission of attacking more geographically diffuse (and usually static) targets on the ground (but almost never in the water). To put it another way: tactical bombers function a bit like tank guns (which fire a single shell in a straight line at a specific target at short range), while strategic bombers function a bit like howitzers (which fire a barrage of shells in a high, indirect curve towards a general target area at long range).

To highlight this distinction, I’m going to switch at this point from the term “tactical bomber” (which I feel is too problematic) to “strike aircraft” (also known as “attack aircraft” or “surface-attack aircraft”).  Such planes fall into many subtypes, such as tank-buster planes, dive bombers, fighter-bombers, torpedo bombers, light bombers, and the fuzzy category of multi-mission strike planes.  Their common characteristic is that their mission involves attacking very specific (and often fairly small) individual targets (such as a tank, a train or a ship) with a high degree of precision, usually from a very low altitude.  In WWII, strike aircraft carried such ordnance as bombs (small to medium sized) and/or rockets, and some were equiped with heavy automatic cannons (around 35mm).  Their weapon load was almost always very limited in quantity.  They had good aerodynamic performance at low altitude (where the air is denser that at high altitude) and at low speeds (which was necessary to allow them to aim accurately at their targets, especially when these were very small).  Strike aircraft often provided direct, on-the-spot support to friendly forces, and thus often operated close to the front lines. They had some ability to defend themselves against other aircraft, but were not optimized for that role and hence were typically at a disadvantage when engaging fighters (since fighters are optimized to shoot down other planes, in the same way that an agile attack submarine is better at killing other subs than an unwieldy ballistic missile submarine, even though both types are armed with torpedoes).

Strategic bombers, as I’ve already said, had the primary mission in WWII of attacking more geographically diffuse (and usually static) targets on the ground.  In WWII (pre-smart bomb days), this usually meant attacking areas rather than specific individual targets: one example would be cities, but other examples from June 1944 would be the coastal defenses on the Normandy coast and the areas of the French bocage countryside where German troops were dug in.  WWII strategic bombers tended to be big, long-range, relatively slow aircraft.  They tended to carry a large payload of bombs (explosive or incendiary), which they tend to drop from a high altitude (though not always).  They tended to conduct raids deep behind enemy lines.  Their accuracy in WWII was pretty bad by the laser-guided standards of 2014; even in daylight, with the aid of the Norden bombsight, the Americans didn’t have an easy time taking out specific targets even when they were as large as factory complexes (for example the Schweinfurt ball bearing plant).  Their performance against moving surface ships tended to be poor (the B-17s which attacked the Japanese fleet at Midway scored no hits as I recall), though there were exceptions (such as the ASV/Leigh Light ASW planes I mentioned previously).  Even against big, static naval targets – such as the Tirpitz at Trondheim – they were lucky to hit targets which were that specific.  Their organic defensive capabilities varied depending on the specific type (the American B-17 and B-29 were well-armed by bomber standards), but this protection was marginal at best against full-fledged enemy fighters flown by good pilots.  The best protection for a bomber was an escort fighter, especially a long-range one which could stay at the bomber’s side for the whole mission.

Thanks Marc,
it was exactly what I needed to see straight.
It will clearly help me.
Even if it is not gospel, it is still a very good reference IMO.

And what is funny about your accurate description on the combat situation of TcB tactical (named strike-aircraft) is it helped me name a feel faint about the TcB and Tank interaction:

Their common characteristic is that their mission involves attacking very specific (and often fairly small) individual targets (such as a tank, a train or a ship) with a high degree of precision, usually from a very low altitude. In WWII, strike aircraft carried such ordnance as bombs (small to medium sized) and/or rockets, and some were equipped with heavy automatic cannons (around 35mm).  Their weapon load was almost always very limited in quantity.  They had good aerodynamic performance at low altitude (where the air is denser that at high altitude) and at low speeds (which was necessary to allow them to aim accurately at their targets, especially when these were very small).  Strike aircraft often provided direct, on-the-spot support to friendly forces, and thus often operated close to the front lines. They had some ability to defend themselves against other aircraft, but were not optimized for that role and hence were typically at a disadvantage when engaging fighters…

These many characteristics don’t seem to be depict at their best in the “when paired 1:1 with a Tank, TcB get A4”.

This capacity given to TcB seems to put the tactical situation upside down.
It is the supporting weapon (TcB) which receives the bonus instead of the supported (Tank) unit.
It was clear about our Fg discussion, that it was Fg which get a supporting role toward TcB.
Hence, Fg gives +1A to TcB.

Based on this preceeding OOB rule and the historical description you just provided, it should be the TcB which give +1A to Tank, not the contrary.

Don’t you think?

Do you have any idea, why it finished the other way around?

Based on this change, it would have give this:
Fg gives +1A when paired 1:1 to TcB,
TcB gives +1A when paired 1:1 to Tank.

Maybe it was too easily confusing, because someone with 1 Fg, 1 TcB and 1 Tank on offence could have think this way:
1 Fg A3D4C10 + 1 TcB A4D3C11 + 1 Tk A4D3C6.
So, 1 TcB unit would have given +2A bonus.

Otherwise, I can not see why they didn’t make it that way.

However, it is also a way to create an HR which can somehow boosted a little more the TcB at 11 IPCs and create an incentive to buy more of them.
So, instead of just working in pair, it could work in trio:
1 Fg is protecting a TcB (can be matched with) on offence, give TcB A4.
this TcB is also protecting (can also be matched to) a Tk on offence, give Tk A4.

Of course, at first glance, nothing forbid to give also these bonus on defence.
In this case Fg-TcB-Tk (A11D12C27) become a dangerous triumvirate on the battlefield.

And this raise the question of balance between units:
4 Inf+Art= A16D16C28. 7 Art= A14D14C28. 9 Inf= A9D18C27.
Would you find the triumvirate too overpowered?

EDIT:
I add this different description of the TcB and StB by kcdzim for completeness and comparison:

Part of this stems from simplified game mechanics and part of it certainly stems from earlier versions.

In the previous games, they weren’t called Strategic Bombers. They were bombers.
And “Bombers” certainly included more than just high altitude heavy bombers.

The nomenclature changed but their roles haven’t: Strategic Bombers still include medium bombers. The fact that Tactical bombers are compatible with carriers, implies they represent smaller planes. Yes, the Mitchell flew off a carrier for the Doolittle Raid, but that was a VERY specialized use of a medium bomber that was essentially stripped to even get off the flight deck. So Strategic bombers still include medium bombers like the Mitchell, and Tactical bombers are more akin to heavy fighters, ground attack, dive bombers, torpedo bombers, etc., which were more often single engine or single pilot or pilot/navigator, and not manned with a substantial crew, didn’t carry substantial loads.

Historically, medium Bombers like the Mitchell, Invader, Havoc, etc., were effective in low altitude bombing/torpedo attacks on naval units. Torpedoes obviously worked well, but Skip bombing was also very effective against transport and warship alike and used extensively by the allies in the south pacific (battle of the Bismarck sea being a good example). B17’s even got in on the action. It’s just not a high altitude bombing run that you imagine from “strategic bombers” and movies like Memphis Belle.

Look at the Tac bombers we have: a ground attack tank killer (Sturmovik), 3 dive bombers (Stuka, Dauntless, Val) and a Mosquito, which is a blurred recon/day and night fighter/torp bomber/fast bomber/pest. None of those are really close to the role of the Mitchell (which is certainly a “tactical bomber” by any standard definition EXCEPT this game). There’s no good single name that covers the roles of aircraft in between Air superiority Fighter and Strategic Bomber. Tactical Bomber is what we have, but you NEED to imagine it means heavy fighter/dive bomber/torpedo bomber/ground attack/night fighter/fighter-bomber as well. And NOT medium bomber.

Until the game differentiates further with medium bombers vs high altitude bombers (it’s not likely to as that favours the allies), then “strategic bombers” is still somewhat accurate as they don’t simply represent Heavy Bombers alone and it’s acceptable to use them to represent the role of Medium bombers in Naval warfare.

http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=5629

CWOMarc explained already a lot of what I meant.
But to be more detailed and precisley:
I meant you need DD’s to detect subs, any airplanes can’t detect SS unless they had been given orders to fly to a certain sz by Bletchley Park and start their search.
As CWOMarc already mentioned, catalinas could take off and land on sea and didn’t need much of a performance to drop their load like TacB to destroy Subs.
I added Carrier along with DD’s to detect SS, but was more thinking of detecting SS in touching sz (recon planes for example, I don’t know). A nice and need adding for a HR.
The Subs greatest benefit was to be silence. As long nobody knew that there was a sub around, it was the deadliest weapon around.
These are all abilities a TacB does not quiet fit in I think.
If I recall correctly, there may be confirmed sinkings of German subs by Spitfires at Gibraltar, but I might err.
Thanks, I will look into it.

On the carrier as ASW, I retrieve this from an older thread about light and escort carrier, you can follow the link to get the whole picture:
@Baron:

@toblerone77:

I’m thinking more like “cheap carrier”. One IPC (9 total) over the half price of a regular fleet carrier, otherwise you may as well just buy a fleet carrier. As far as ASW I’m thinking that it should have destroyer-like abilities only when paired with a tactical bomber.

So if we stay in Global,
CVE : A0D1C9, 1 hit, carry1 plane, become ASW when paired with a TacB.
vs
CV A0D2C16, 2 hits, carry 2 planes.

And from an historical point of view,
are you sure Fg have no attack capabilities against Subs, even non-submerge one?
I find this more simple to give ASW to the CVE, whether Fg or Tac inboard.
Besides, it is a less powerful ASW than DD because it has only @1. Their real strength still lies in the plane.

Even in a HR game in which StB and TcB can directly hit subs without DD, Destroyer would stay necessary to block Subs capacities.
A StB unit flying over a bunch of German U-boats could do nothing to sink them.
So, even in this situation, Subs are not sitting duck in the ocean. They stay an efficient weapon.

In fact, allowing some planes to directly hit subs is making the subs a more useful unit as a cheaper fodder (6 IPCs instead of 8 IPCs for DD) to protect any fleet against all kind of attackers units.

You can read this discussion to better understand how Subs replaces DDs “when planes can hit subs”.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=14344.msg1265585#msg1265585

@CWO:

@Baron:

On historical background, the question is which type of planes was used on mission patrol against Subs: Fg or TcB?

For whatever this information might be worth, the aircraft which were most involved in antisubmarine warfare in the Atlantic in the second half of WWII, when the Allies finally closed the mid-Atlantic air gap, were the PBY Catalina (a seaplane), the Wellington (a medium bomber) and the Liberator (a heavy bomber).  An effective and successful configuration for these aircraft was to equip them with ASV air-to-surface radar and with Leigh Light floodlamps.  This combination of equipment allowed them to pick up a surfaced U-boat on radar at night, approach undetected until they were virtually on top of the sub, then floodlight it and hit it with bombs before it had time to submerge.

I’ve just revised the list of IJN Submarines to find if there is many of them which were sink by planes. It appears that there is not much. Most of them were sunk by destroyers or submarines. A few by Patrol Squadron compose of similar aircrafts as you mention above.
A special case, is the I-52 destroyed by an Avenger from the Escort Carrier USS Bogue by dropping a Mark 24 “mine” torpedo:

It also had 9 FM-2 Wildcats and 12 TBF-1C Avenger of VC-69 on board. The task force, on its way from Hampton Roads to Casablanca, had sunk another Japanese submarine, the Type IX RO-501 (formerly U-1224) on 13 May 1944. This was a very effective force, sinking 13 German and Japanese submarines between February 1943 and July 1945.

So, even if this seems contrary to the intuition, no Wildcat nor any other fighters seems to be able to kill by itself a Submarine, always an Avenger is needed.
I found a detail description about how TcB and Fg works against subs in a Hunter-killer groups:
http://www.uboat.net/allies/ships/uss_guadalcanal-4.htm

So, inside the basic OOB rule which said “Plane cannot hit subs”, and based on this more careful examination, and as far as I know, it would be a better depiction if the game rules allows only:
TcB and StB to be able to hit subs when a DD is present.
and on the other part, a Fg can never hit subs.

This could have been a real incentive to buy TcB unit on carrier to protect them from Submarines, and it would have give to Fg and TcB a more delineated capacity to both of them.
Regardless of the A/D value between them.

And, via this symbolic depiction of war, adding a “correct WWII tactical and strategical impression” on all G40 players.

Now, do you think there is a glimpse of truth about my first statement, made much earlier?

Once this said, I think TacB is the newest (except for AAA guns) unit introduced and can have a better place and much more historical feel in relation to SBR escort and intercept (air vs air combat) rules, and vs regular combat: ground and naval.
(As for now, I’m just thinking that TacBs should have a combat value against Subs (not Fighters), even without DDs, they represent Dive and Torpedos bombers after all.)

So to summarize in a game description, the various point develop amongst the thread to create a different TcB and Fg unit, more rooted on the historical background:

TcB A3-4D3-4M4C11 (as OOB can hit subs when paired to DD),
when teamed to 1 Tank, TcB gives +1A/D to this unit.
TcB**can still received +1A/D, if also paired to a Fg.**

Fg A3D4M4C10 Can never hit subs.
When teamed 1:1 to 1 TcB, give +1A/D to this unit.

Is this kind of units too complicated for Global player? I don’t think.

The three units coordination, too unbalancing: probably, but this wasn’t the point.
It was simpler to give it A/D than giving to attack only.

But, when you look at this units, you clearly see how Tank should need TcB support, and how TcB should need Fg escort.

Even on ASWarfare mission attacking for Subs, it becomes plausible to let Fg units give a support bonus to TcB without being able to directly hit subs. Another historical tactical depiction feel.

Finally, Fg unit A3D4 kept is distinctive defensive symbolic value.
It is the most valuable unit on defense.
And Fgs provides to TcB an air advantage which allows it to reach the symbolic “4”, never by itself.

Making TcB inferior (A3D3) offence and defence compared directly to Fg unit and because of the additional 1 IPC.
However, all this matching bonus make them a very dangerous pair on the battlefield.
As it was in WWII.

Adding to this that Fg can intercept on an SBR while the TcB cannot.

I can also provide an additional but simple aspect to help Fg be a better aircraft during SBR: an air superiority aircraft over TcB and StB units.

Inspired by 1914 dogfight phase, simply

allows a second cycle @1 to Fgs units, both attacking and defending. (Where StBs and TcBs are limited to a first cycle A@1.)

And if you feel that defending plane should have a better hand over attacking one

then, on this second cycle, roll the defending Fgs first, pick the casualty.
Then, roll for the attacking Fg, then remove the defenders casualty.

This first strike for defending Fgs on a second cycle, would clearly make a small difference.

Now we have a whole picture, of small but accurate aspects which can provide a better “feeling” of both Fgs and TcBs functions and usefulness during WWII.

And all this, playing near the actual OOB game system.

That’s just some kind of rules (intended to be as much simple as possible) based on what inspired the different historical and accurate description of WWII situation.

I still think the depiction of the reality can somehow find a large consensus.

But this never implied a large consensus over any rules trying to translate in game terms some interesting features draw from this historical vision.
That is where the fun begin about HR comparison, there goal, there game implications, there historical value, etc.

I won’t get into the subject of specific A/D/M/C values for units, because I’m no good at translating real-world weapon performances into A&A combat values, but here are a couple of comments on some points you’ve mentioned:

Based on this preceeding OOB rule and the historical description you just provided, it should be the TcB which give +1A to Tank, not the contrary. Don’t you think? <<

Precisely.  Tactical aircraft support tanks (and other ground units) in ground combat.  Tanks don’t support tactical aircraft.  Stukas used to be nicknamed “flying artillery”, which is a pretty good description of their role, but it would be absurd for a tank to be regarded as a “grounded aircraft”.

I’ve just revised the list of IJN Submarines to find if there is many of them which were sink by planes. It appears that there is not much. Most of them were sunk by destroyers or submarines.  <<

And there’s a good reason for this.  Japanese subs in the Pacific and German subs in the Atlantic played almost completely different roles.  The Japanese considered that the primary mission of a sub was to sink enemy warships, and IJN subs therefore wasted a lot of time trying to do so rather than attacking the USN’s supporting transport ships (which, being slower than warships, would have made much easier targets).  The USN therefore didn’t have to devote a huge effort to ASW in the Pacific.  In the Atlantic, Germany considered the primary mission of a sub was to sink enemy transport ships.  The cargos being convoyed by these ships were vital to the Alllied war effort, so the Allies placed more and more priority on defending them as the war went on.  In other words, German subs were a high-priority target for the Allies, whereas Japanese subs were not.  A related factor was that the Atlantic is only about half the size of the Pacific, and that the Allied convoys sailed on fairly well-defined routes, so these elements made combat encounters with subs much more likely in the Atlantic than in the Pacific.  The Americans, interestingly, used their own subs in the Pacific much as the Germans did in their Atlantic: the USN’s submarines concentrated on attacking the Japanese shipping routes bringing oil and other critical supplies to the Japanese home islands.  USN subs might have suffered considerable casualties in the process if the Japanese had taken this threat seriously, but Japan – despite being a maritime nation – gave astonishingly little importance to convoying their merchant ships and to developing their ASW capabilities.  So in a nutshell, Japan had a faulty understanding of how Japanese submarines should be used for maximum effect against the Americans, and a faulty understanding of how effectively the Americans were using their own submarines against Japan.

CWO Marc,
You make a VERY good point. It was the tactical bombers that supported the tanks, not the other way around. Perhaps it would be a better idea to boost each tank that is paired 1 on 1 with a tactical bomber +1 in combat.
The tank/tac bomber combo is considered an example of combined arms.
The fighter/tac bomber combo is considered an example of air superiority. Do you think perhaps in those combos, it is the fighter that should be boosted +1 on attack while the actual tac bomber remains attacking @ 3? A fighter is after all a better example of air superiority than a tactical bomber I think.

Thanks CWO Marc for your analysis.
It underlines some inconsistency between the game rules and what it is supposed to depict of the tactical combined arms.

@knp7765:

CWO Marc,
You make a VERY good point. It was the tactical bombers that supported the tanks, not the other way around. Perhaps it would be a better idea to boost each tank that is paired 1 on 1 with a tactical bomber +1 in combat.
The tank/tac bomber combo is considered an example of combined arms.
The fighter/tac bomber combo is considered an example of air superiority.

Do you think perhaps in those combos, it is the fighter that should be boosted +1 on attack while the actual tac bomber remains attacking @ 3? A fighter is after all a better example of air superiority than a tactical bomber I think.

You have a good question Knp.

I don’t really based my view of Fg and TcB interaction on this air superiority, but mostly on the bonus given to TcB by Fg.
Air superiority between aircrafts is rather difficult to show in the actual game mechanics because all these costlier units are protected behind piles of ground units.

Most of the time after the first turn, all vulnerable Fgs which were on the front line are put behind and kept in reserve and used rather on attack (paired with TcB) than defense.

It is a hard decision to put a Fg in jeopardy, knowing that with sufficient resources of attacking ground troops, it can be lost after only 1 or 2 rolls @4 on defense, trading a 10 IPCs unit for 1 or 2 Inf, at best.

Except for a revised SBR escort and interceptor with 2 rounds or cycles for Fgs, there is not many ways to translate the Fg Air Superiority in actual game mechanics.

Maybe it is better to look into Air-naval battle because there is costlier Cruiser, Carrier and Battleship units which needs protection so a cheaper Fg unit will be taken as casualty instead, from both sides: attacker and defender.

Is there other way to simulate the Air Superiority of Fg? IDK
Letting any 1 Fg paired 1:1, giving +1A to another Fg or TcB indifferently?

Otherwise, you have to houserule a dogfight phase prior to the regular combat phase (in which anyone can give a real advantage to Fg.)

Actually, I just see this Air superiority by the fact that Fg gives the +1A bonus, and that both Fg and TcB have an A3 value, but Fg get it at 10 IPCs rather than 11 IPCs.

On a face to face and same IPCs basis, 11 Fg A3 are better than 10 TcB A3:  71% vs 27%.
Almost 3 times better.

@knp7765:

CWO Marc, You make a VERY good point. It was the tactical bombers that supported the tanks, not the other way around. Perhaps it would be a better idea to boost each tank that is paired 1 on 1 with a tactical bomber +1 in combat. The tank/tac bomber combo is considered an example of combined arms. The fighter/tac bomber combo is considered an example of air superiority. Do you think perhaps in those combos, it is the fighter that should be boosted +1 on attack while the actual tac bomber remains attacking @ 3? A fighter is after all a better example of air superiority than a tactical bomber I think.

In my opinion, a good way to determine what unit should realistically get what kind of boost in a combined arms situation is to examine how those units were used together in real life (IF they were really used together) and to ask yourself “which is the supporing unit and which is the supported one?”  In a tank + tactical bomber situation, the tac bomber is supporting the tank, so it’s the tank’s capabilities that should get a boost.  The tank is the unit being supported because the tac bomber is supporting a ground combat operation, and thus is making the tank’s work more effective.  (As further proof, consider how ridiculous it would be to imagine that the tannk is supporting the tac bomber in air combat.)

In a fighter + tac bomber situation, it’s the fighter which is supporting the tac bomber.  The fighter’s job is to provide protective cover to the tac bomber while it attacks its target, because tac bombers (being slower and less maneuverable) are vulnerable to enemy fighter attack.  That’s the reason the American dive bombers at Midway got slaughtered: not only did they run into the defending Japanese Zeros (which was bad enough), they also did so without any friendly fighter protection of their own (because, due to various factors, the American bomber and fighter groups became separated during the outward flight and didn’t arrive over the target at the same time).  So in a fighter + tac bomber situation, it’s the tac bomber which should get the boost.

To carry this principle one step further, I’d argue that in a fighter + tac bomber + tank situation, both the tac bomber and the tank should both get a boost because the fighter is supporting the tac bomber and the tac bomber is supporting the tank.  A perfect example of why combined arms techniques – when correctly used – were so valuable during WWII.

That’s the reason the American dive bombers at Midway got slaughtered <<

Oops, I meant the torpedo bombers.  Sorry.

@Baron:

Maybe it is better to look into Air-naval battle because there is costlier Cruiser, Carrier and Battleship units which needs protection so a cheaper Fg unit will be taken as casualty instead, from both sides: attacker and defender.

It would be an interesting exercise to go through the official OOB rules and check all of the combined-arms bonuses to see how they hold up to the “which is the supporting unit and which is the supported one?” test which I mentioned in my earlier post today.  For example, when I saw the part of your text that I’ve just quoted, it made me think about the two roles which the US Navy’s battleships played in the Pacific in WWII.  One role was to provide shore bombardment to support amphibious landings, but another role (especially for the fast battleships) was to provide anti-aircraft defense for the fleet carriers.  In AA& terms, this would translate into providing carriers with a defense boost against air attack when the carriers are paired with battleships.  Generally this would mean a boost against attacks by tac bombers, but it would also apply to kamikaze attacks (since some of these attacks were carried out by small fighter-type planes).

@CWO:

It would be an interesting exercise to go through the official OOB rules and check all of the combined-arms bonuses to see how they hold up to the “which is the supporting unit and which is the supported one?” test which I mentioned in my earlier post today.  For example, when I saw the part of your text that I’ve just quoted, it made me think about the two roles which the US Navy’s battleships played in the Pacific in WWII.  One role was to provide shore bombardment to support amphibious landings, but another role (especially for the fast battleships) was to provide anti-aircraft defense for the fleet carriers.  In AA& terms, this would translate into providing carriers with a defense boost against air attack when the carriers are paired with battleships.  Generally this would mean a boost against attacks by tac bombers, but it would also apply to kamikaze attacks (since some of these attacks were carried out by small fighter-type planes).

Wanting to give a boost by adding an AAA capacity to cruiser and based on this documentary, I provided a combined arms for Cruiser with BB and for Cruiser with BB and Carrier.

Around 3min. 25 s.: they explain how a fleet defensive formation was organized.
From outer circles/rings, to the most inner circles/rings: DDs, cruisers, BBs, fleet carriers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxhzWUhBJgE

Between cruiser and battleship is it correct to consider that both provide a kind of anti-air cover for carriers?
Mainly Cruiser (mostly light cruisers with AA batteries)?
Mainly BB?

What is your opinion?

@Baron:

Between cruiser and battleship is correct to consider that both provide a kind of anti-air cover for carriers? Mainly Cruiser (mostly light cruisers with AA batteries)? Mainly BB? What is your opinion?

US battleships and US cruisers both carried a decent number of 5-inch dual-purpose guns (typically 5-inch/38-caliber models), which had good performance both as surface-attack weapons and as anti-aircraft weapons.  Anti-aircraft light cruisers, I think, carried even more of them than light and heavy cruisers or battleships. In addition to the 5-inchers, battleships and cruisers also carried large numbers of 40mm and 20mm anti-aircraft autocannons and of .50 caliber heavy machine guns, so they could put up quite a wall of AAA fire of assorted calibers when all of that stuff was fired all at once.  (Interestingly, when the kamikaze attacks started, it was found that only the shells from the 5-inch guns had enough kinetic energy and explosive power to have a good chance of stopping an approaching kamizaze plane dead in its tracks, assuming that a hit could be scored.  The machine guns, the 20mm Oerlikons and even the 40mm Bofors could kill the pilot and/or set the plane on fire, but wouldn’t necessarily blow it out of the sky, so kamikaze planes would sometimes continue flying in the general direction of the target even though the pilot was dead.)  So yes, I’d say that both battleships and cruisers should confer an anti-aircraft defensive bonus to carriers when paired with them.  American carriers and destroyers carried 5"/38cal guns too, but in much smaller numbers than battleships and cruisers – so those weapons don’t need to be taken into account because of their small numbers.  For the carriers, I’d regard the presence of these guns as already built into their standard defense values.  For destroyers I wouldn’t see them as giving any anti-aircraft bonus to carriers.

@CWO:

@Baron:

Between cruiser and battleship is correct to consider that both provide a kind of anti-air cover for carriers? Mainly Cruiser (mostly light cruisers with AA batteries)? Mainly BB? What is your opinion?

US battleships and US cruisers both carried a decent number of 5-inch dual-purpose guns (typically 5-inch/38-caliber models), which had good performance both as surface-attack weapons and as anti-aircraft weapons.  Anti-aircraft light cruisers, I think, carried even more of them than light and heavy cruisers or battleships. In addition to the 5-inchers, battleships and cruisers also carried large numbers of 40mm and 20mm anti-aircraft autocannons and of .50 caliber heavy machine guns, so they could put up quite a wall of AAA fire of assorted calibers when all of that stuff was fired all at once.  (Interestingly, when the kamikaze attacks started, it was found that only the shells from the 5-inch guns had enough kinetic energy and explosive power to have a good chance of stopping an approaching kamizaze plane dead in its tracks, assuming that a hit could be scored.  The machine guns, the 20mm Oerlikons and even the 40mm Bofors could kill the pilot and/or set the plane on fire, but wouldn’t necessarily blow it out of the sky, so kamikaze planes would sometimes continue flying in the general direction of the target even though the pilot was dead.)  So yes, I’d say that both battleships and cruisers should confer an anti-aircraft defensive bonus to carriers when paired with them. American carriers and destroyers carried 5"/38cal guns too, but in much smaller numbers than battleships and cruisers – so those weapons don’t need to be taken into account because of their small numbers.  For the carriers, I’d regard the presence of these guns as already built into their standard defense values.  For destroyers I wouldn’t see them as giving any anti-aircraft bonus to carriers.

I’m amazed by the precision and details you get out of your hat. I really like reading your post. :-)

I truly agree with you on DDs and Carriers.

Did you take a look at the documentary?
Is it accurate ?

On the combined arms, is there some pairing which shouldn’t work?
BB + CV? You already suggested it.
Cruiser + CV ? It is implied in your post.
Cruiser + BB + CV? It is the heavier combination, so it is for sure.

But about Cruiser + BB ?
**Can they have a combined arms by themselves when put together?

Or Carrier should be needed absolutely in the mix?
Or is it just a matter of game preference and HR?**
As my old HR was intended to create an incentive for buying more cruiser units.

On the other side, does this defensive formation based on 3 concentric rings of units cannot simply be part of the OOB values of BB, CA and CV?
I’m wandering, does UK or Japan did the same thing with their warships?

Or is it a distinctive coordination of USN warships working in a Task Force or a Carrier group?
Hence, justifying the in game combined arms bonus for an AAA umbrella cover.