New Attack and Defense Board

Some good ideas…

I see where you are getting at but some of the values are questionable:

subs attacking subs at 2?
Carriers have a better defense against Battleships from fighters?  Id switch them
Why cant artillery defend or attack against planes while tanks can?
Why are bombers getting attacks on fighters at 2? Id make it one
Why/how do submarines attack planes?

thats two complicated battleboards
so all units have targetted attacks now?

submarine attacking submarine
in WWII era, submarine vs submarine kills are rare, almost accidental

it is not until 60s to 70s, when we’ve made enough advances to sonar and torpedo guidance, did we have proper submarine vs submarine combat
(oh, and thats mostly for nuclear powered submarines, cos you need the large size to carry all that advanced equipment)

naval combat
since you have specific numbers for different land units combating different land units
why not for naval units?
battleship would make short work of destroyers for example

You’re right Tekkyy

That’s the reason why in my house rules, sub must have 1 to detroy another sub.

Al.

I believe Battleships and Carriers both had quite a complement of AA Guns.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on July 10, 2007, 06:48:21 pm
subs attacking subs at 2?

Subs fire with torpedos, obviously, so I figured it’s harder to hit a skinny sub with a torpedo than a large battleship.

Torpedo’s don’t fire deeper than about 6-10 feet below the water line. And subs are not going to be surfaced to receive them as hits. So basically subs cant hit other subs .No sub in ww2 was ever sunk in such a manner

Quote from: Imperious Leader on July 10, 2007, 06:48:21 pm
Carriers have a better defense against Battleships from fighters?  Id switch them

Carriers were lined with AA guns, but I do see you’re point.  Would you suggest switching them, or setting both to the same number?  I need input like this.

Just switch them. A carrier had far less AA guns than a Battleship, while a cruiser was an AA gun platform.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on July 10, 2007, 06:48:21 pm
Why cant artillery defend or attack against planes while tanks can?

Tanks had a mounted machine gun on the top, that would fire at the plane.  But I can’t see an artillery hitting a plane out of the sky.

The German 88 was used also an an AA gun as well as others. That machine gun is like in 95% of tanks mounted in the front body of the tank and not on the turret. And moreover, it was seldom used in such a manner against planes. The guy in the turret firing it had a very narrow arc of fire. He could never hope to grow arms 5 feet longer to move and aim the gun around his rearground, unless the turret moved as well and that could never happen against a plane moving at 500 MPH.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on July 10, 2007, 06:48:21 pm
Why are bombers getting attacks on fighters at 2? Id make it one

Also a good point, I can change that and see how it works.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on July 10, 2007, 06:48:21 pm
Why/how do submarines attack planes?

As the same with tanks, subs had a machine gun on the top.  As well, most had an AA gun on top too so when they had to come up for air they could defend themselves.

LMFAO!!! Against air targets a submarine could only hope to submerge and avoid total destruction. Their is no case where the deck gun of a sub EVER hit any plane.

Subs cant see underwater with WW2 technology. That could only happen to captain Nemo. Until the early 1960’s it wasn’t possible.

They get just under the surface to see targets and enemy subs aren’t gonna be them only surface ships.

deck guns were used to save the torpedo against defenseless transports to finish them off. Thats it.

the tank’s machine guns are hardly effective against planes
if antiaircraft hits planes at 1, then tank would hit at 0 lol
PC games like BF1942 is giving people wrong ideas

once a submarine submerge and evades all meaningful combat is over
the revised edition game rule of destroyers preventing submarines from submerging is giving people wrong ideas

@Ham:

That’s a good point, I can easily change that.  I’m thinking for Battleships:
Battleships: 3 or less
Destroyers and subs: 4 or less
Transports: 5 or less (or 4 or less)

yeah it’ll be good for completeness since you have specific values for land units

but probably battleships hit submarines at 1
since they don’t have ASW weapons

@Imperious:

Quote from: Imperious Leader on July 10, 2007, 06:48:21 pm
subs attacking subs at 2?

Subs fire with torpedos, obviously, so I figured it’s harder to hit a skinny sub with a torpedo than a large battleship.

Torpedo’s don’t fire deeper than about 6-10 feet below the water line. And subs are not going to be surfaced to receive them as hits. So basically subs cant hit other subs .No sub in ww2 was ever sunk in such a manner

Quote from: Imperious Leader on July 10, 2007, 06:48:21 pm
Carriers have a better defense against Battleships from fighters?  Id switch them

Carriers were lined with AA guns, but I do see you’re point.  Would you suggest switching them, or setting both to the same number?  I need input like this.

Just switch them. A carrier had far less AA guns than a Battleship, while a cruiser was an AA gun platform.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on July 10, 2007, 06:48:21 pm
Why cant artillery defend or attack against planes while tanks can?

Tanks had a mounted machine gun on the top, that would fire at the plane.  But I can’t see an artillery hitting a plane out of the sky.

The German 88 was used also an an AA gun as well as others. That machine gun is like in 95% of tanks mounted in the front body of the tank and not on the turret. And moreover, it was seldom used in such a manner against planes. The guy in the turret firing it had a very narrow arc of fire. He could never hope to grow arms 5 feet longer to move and aim the gun around his rearground, unless the turret moved as well and that could never happen against a plane moving at 500 MPH.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on July 10, 2007, 06:48:21 pm
Why are bombers getting attacks on fighters at 2? Id make it one

Also a good point, I can change that and see how it works.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on July 10, 2007, 06:48:21 pm
Why/how do submarines attack planes?

As the same with tanks, subs had a machine gun on the top.  As well, most had an AA gun on top too so when they had to come up for air they could defend themselves.

LMFAO!!! Against air targets a submarine could only hope to submerge and avoid total destruction. Their is no case where the deck gun of a sub EVER hit any plane.

I am not sure who Imperious Leader is, but he has fed you a lot of wrong information.

With respect to subs and torpedo fire, torpedos could be set to run a lot deeper than 6-10 feet.  The standard setting for firing at a battleship or carrier was 25 feet, with the same setting for aerial torpedoes.  The only time you would set a torpedo that shallow would be when firing at a destroyer or small cargo ship.  As for subs verses subs, the US submarine Batfish sank 3 Japanese subs during World War 2 when it caught them on the surface.  If you wish, I will go through my Conway’s Warships of the World for both WW1 and WW2, and send you a list of all subs sunk by other submarines when they were caught on the surface.  Note, the list will be sort of long.  There was also one case in WW2 of a successful attack by a submerged British sub on a submerged U-boat.  It occurred in 1945, when the HMS Venturer sank a U-boat with a submerged torpedo shot at 50 feet.  World War Two subs spent a lot of time on the surface running on their diesels to reach patrol areas and chase targets.  Snorkels did not come into widespread use until mid 1944. and then only by Germany.  So an attack of 2 by a sub verses a sub is perfectly acceptable.

Carrier having far less AA guns than a battleship.  That depends on the carrier.  US and British fleet carriers had about the same AA firepower as a battleship.  Japanese carriers were roughly comparable to Japanese battleships, which is to say, not very good.  The Graf Zeppelin was designed with both a 150mm surface battery and a 105mm AA battery, with limited automatic weapons, so about the same as Bismarck and Tirpitz, for a so-so AA battery.  The Italian battleships had a pretty good AA setup, and based on performance against the same type of British aircraft, better than the Germans.  The adoption by the US and UK of radar and the proximity fuze massively improved AA fire from 1943 on.  If I were rating them, the US and UK would get 4 for defense against aircraft, the Italians maybe a 3, the Germans a 2, and the Japanese a 1.  That probably would really bug Japanese players, but I did an analysis of antiaircraft performance for another game design team, and the Japanese were really bad.  You could be generous and give them a 2.  The record for aircraft shot down by a single ship in one engagement was achieved by the USS South Dakota, a battleship newly fitted with 40mm quads, at the Battle off Santa Cruz in October of 1942, when the ship shot down 26 Japanese aircraft while supplying AA cover for the carrier USS Enterprise.

Both the UK and US built special purpose AA cruisers, which were not quite as good as a battleship, so could be a 3, while war-built US heavy and light cruisers were close to a battleship in AA firepower.  The British cruisers never got close to a really good AA battery, while the Germans, Italians, and Japanese all lagged quite a bit behind even the British.  Part of the US advantage was the best naval AA firecontrol system of the war.

Machine guns on Tanks:  Again it depends on the tank.  Almost all US tanks carried either a .30 caliber, and if a Sherman, a .50 caliber machine gun on the tank turret top for AA and antipersonnel use.  Same thing for tank destroyers.  The British normally carried a Bren gun in an AA mount on British built tanks and a .50 caliber gun on US supplied Shermans.  As for the rest, neither the Germans, the Russians, the Italians, or the Japanese normally carried an AA machine gun.  However, all armored units normally had automatic AA weapon units added to them.  The Germans used the quad 20mm and the single 37mm, the British used a variety of 20mm and 40mm mounts, while the US used the quad .50 and the 40mm twin Bofors.  The Russians used a quad machine gun mount on obsolete light tank chassis, and the Italians also had some mobile AA mounts.  Since each tank represents an entire armored division, giving tank units, and also artillery units, AA fire is reasonable.

Bombers attack on fighters:  Again, it depends on the bomber.  If you are talking Japanese fighters against B-17, the odds are on the B-17 to shoot down the fighter before being shot down.  The typical exchange rate was about 4 to 6 Zeros per B-17 shot down.  The B-17 was a very tough aircraft, and the Japanese Zero was not that well armed.  However, if you are talking a US Hellcat verses a Japanese Betty, a 1 is being generous, and a 4 for the fighter attack is not high enough.  The Japanese nickname for the Betty was One-Shot Lighter, for its tendency to catch fire immediately upon being hit.  The problem is making everything fit a single value, when you really need nation-specific charts.  I keep thinking about requiring two hits to knock down a B-17 to avoid getting into a mass of charts.

Subs verses Planes:  There are a fair number of instances of subs shooting down aircraft, mainly German subs shooting down British aircraft.  When the British really started to mount sustained daylight aircraft patrols against the German subs transitting the Bay of Biscay, Doenitz beefed up the AA battery of the subs to try to fight their way through.  If I remember correctly, and I have the documents from the National Archives, the exchange rate was about 10 aircraft per 6 subs sunk.  Definitely in the British favor, but not totally without loss either.  The real deadly air attacks were the radar directed attacks on the U-boats at night, using the Leigh Light as the last minute to illuminate the target for dropping depth charges.  Those sank a lot of subs.  By the end of the war, the ASW bombers were using sonobuoys and homing torpedoes with some success, while the Magnetic Anamoly Detector was used very effectively in the Straits of Gibralter in combination with the retro-rockets.  There should be an Allied tech improvement to also bombers to attack subs without destroyers being present.  Oddly enough, the Japanese could get that as well.  They had a pretty good MAD set, and a good system to use it.

I also use a rule that British carriers required two bomb hits to sink, but only one torpedo hit to sink.  The reason for that is the British carriers had an armored flight deck that could keep out any bomb of 500 pound weight or light, and limit the penetration of heavier bombs.  Since the Japanese dive bombers never used anything heavier than a 550 pound bomb, the British carriers could take a fair number of hits.  Generally, when a Kamikaze hit a British flight deck, it broke up and skidded off into the sea.

One other variant that I use is to give US and British transports an attack of 1 and a defense of 2, as they were normally pretty well armed with both surface and antiaircraft guns.  The Liberty ship, USS Stephen Hopkins sank the German merchant raider Steir in the South Atlantic, and was reported by the Germans as being an auxiliary merchant cruiser.

realism

Regarding submarine sinking submarine and tanks destroying warplanes…

One needs to keep in mind this is a strategic level game, where each game piece might represents say 10,000 troops, 1000 tanks, 100 fighters or 10 submarines.

During one particular battle, occasionally submarines kill submarines and tanks down planes.
But the question is has a wolfpack of submarines been sunk by submarines before? An air division destroyed by tanks?

gameplay

Submarine sinking submarine, or tank killing planes could have its value in a operation level game. With a D12 die I might let them do it at 1 or 2.

Rough up the details and back to D6. I surely wouldn’t have submarine kill another submarine on 2 when it kills surface ships at 2 as well.

Tekkyy, I am fully aware of the scaling factor in the game, as I specifically mentioned that each tank represents an armored division and should be viewed as such.  However, I am also fully aware of the time scaling factor in the game, with each turn representing at least a month if not more of time.  So what aircraft losses verses tanks represent is the loss over time of the aircraft, and you do not need to shoot down every plane of a fighter or bomber wing to render it out of action or destroyed.  Cumulative losses over a period of time can be very deadly.

And let us look at your comment.

“During one particular battle, occasionally submarines kill submarines and tanks down planes.
But the question is has a wolfpack of submarines been sunk by submarines before? An air division destroyed by tanks?”

How many times did a wolfpack sink EVERY ship in a convoy.  Answer, not once.  Yet, a transport represents a collection of 30 or more ships.  I suspect that you have no problem sinking a transport with a sub.  How many times did a wolfpack wipe out an entire naval task force?  Answer, not once.  After all, if one sub represents ten, then one destroyer or one battleship or one carrier represents far more than 1 ship.  I suspect that you have no problem whatsoever with a sub sinking a destroyer and the sinking a carrier as well.  There were cases of convoys being badly mangled, mainly the Malta convoys, and one case of a convoy being wiped out as far as merchant ships were concerned, that being the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, with the attackers being the US Army Air Force and the Australian Air Force.

How many times was an entire air division shot down by enemy fighters, or by antiaircraft?  The closest to total annihilation would be the Marianas Turkey Shoot where the US wiped out the Japanese carrier aviation with minimal losses in one day.  Otherwise, the worst losses suffered by the Eighth Air Force in one bombing raid was the Schweinfurt raid, October 14, 1943, when out of 291 B-17 sent out, 65 were shot down.  The worst loss in terms of percentages would be the Ploesti low-level raid on August 1, 1943 when out of 162 Liberator bombers, 54 were shot down by a combination of antiaircraft and fighters and operational losses.  Using the Schweinfurt raid, if each bomber represents 100, then 3 B-17 would have attacked the German industrial center, and less than one would have been shot down.  However, I suspect that if you were the German player, and shot all 3 down, you would have no problems whatsoever with the result.

What the losses of aircraft to tanks represent is losses over time of an air unit attacking a tank unit, a submarine force on the opposing submarine fleet, a submarine force on the opposing merchant marine and navy.  If you say that tanks cannot shoot down aircraft, then I will say that subs cannot destroy naval vessels.  Britain lost TWO aircraft carriers to sub attack in the entire war.  The US lost one aircraft carrier, the Wasp, solely to sub attack, and the Yorktown was lost to a combination of air attack damage and sub attack.  No US battleship was lost to sub attack, and for that matter, no modern US battleship was lost to air attack.  We did sink the Yamato by air attack, but it involved an enormous number of aircraft to do so.  Yet, each battleship should represent an entire battleship division.

How many times was an entire battleship division sunk by sub attack?  For that matter, how many times was an entire infantry division wiped out by one air attack?

Having said all of that, you always have the option of saying, no aircraft losses to tanks in your game and no submarines sinking submarines.  That is your privilege.  You have the option of playing your way, just like I have the option of playing my way.  I believe that my way is more accurate, you believe that yours in more accurate.  Just do not expect me to play your way, and I will not expect you to play my way.

Of course I don’t mean tanks have to destroy every tank to put a division out of action.
I guess its just where you and me draw the line in term of ability to put a group out of action.

(ie. You reason the cases of submarine to submarine combat is significant. Whereas I reason it could not have happened on a wide scale.)

The OP’s battleboard is about unit-to-unit specific combat values.
For me to get a precise idea of what you feel, what values would you give for submarine attack destroyer and submarine attack submarine? Secondly, tank destroyer tank and tank destroyer air?

In terms of capital ships not often sunk by submarines I feel thats another issue.
Its not because of combat values but defender retreat.
(ie. Battleships takes 2-hits.)

@tekkyy:

Of course I don’t mean tanks have to destroy every tank to put a division out of action.
I guess its just where you and me draw the line in term of ability to put a group out of action.

(ie. You reason the cases of submarine to submarine combat is significant. Whereas I reason it could not have happened on a wide scale.)

The OP’s battleboard is about unit-to-unit specific combat values.
For me to get a precise idea of what you feel, what values would you give for submarine attack destroyer and submarine attack submarine? Secondly, tank destroyer tank and tank destroyer air?

In terms of capital ships not often sunk by submarines I feel thats another issue.
Its not because of combat values but defender retreat.
(ie. Battleships takes 2-hits.)

Based on the success rate of US sub attacks on Japanese escorts in the Pacific, I would put the attack value of a submarine on a destroyer of 1, and I would have no problem with a submarine vs. submarine attack of 1, with no option of attacking submerged subs by another submarine.  A submarine attack of 2 verses other surface ships is about right, as it give you 1 chance in 3 of success, and the average success rate in attacks by US subs against other types of ship targets besides escorts ranges from 25 to 40 per cent.  A 1 in 3 chance is pretty accurate.

With respect to tank verses tank, it really should be an edge to the defender, as typically defending tanks would be in hull down positions.  However, here you really need country-specific charts as well.  Shermans attacking defending Panthers in WW2 typically got pretty grim, as did Russians attacking Panthers.  However, Japanese tanks attacking Shermans is a walkover for the Americans, and was a walkover for the Russians in Manchuria in 1945.  Without country-specific charts, a tank should attack another tank at 2 and defend against another tank at 3, as a first approximation.  If Germans verses either Britain, US, or Russia, you could defend at 4, with the attackers at 2.  This would be close to historical results.  For the Japanese against either Britain, US, or Russia, attack and defend at 1, as that Japanese tanks were simply not that good.  I would almost give the Japanese tanks the same attack and defense against infantry as well, as with their light armor, they were highly vulnerable to even light antitank weapons.

Concerning tanks verses aircraft, here is where I wish that Avalon Hill used something besides a 6-sided die.  I would prefer an 8-sided die to use for tanks verses aircraft.  Either that, or have dedicated ground attack aircraft.  In the absence of both, what you could do is allow the tanks to attack at 1, but allow for a saving throw for the aircraft of say 1 to 3, where it can no longer attack, but returns to base damaged and flies again the next turn.  This would be for fighters.  I would also drop the attack of fighters on tanks to 2 to reflect the toughness of the target, and the limited range of ordnance that they could carry to destroy tanks.  For bombers, I would reduce the attack roll to 3, and allow for a saving roll of 1-4.  The larger the plane, the tougher it is to shoot down.  You also have to take into account the type of engine used on fighters, whether air or liquid-cooled, as liquid-cooled engines were more vulnerable to ground fire.  Case is point is the survivability of the P-47 verses the P-51 if hit:  a hit P-51 had a 20% survival rate, a hit P-47 had a 40% survival rate.  However, a P-40, even though using a liquid-cooled engine, had a survival rate similar to that of the P-47.  The
P-40 was a very tough plane.  Another example, from the Korean War, had the loss rate of the P-51 six times that of the jet-powered
F-80 when both were used in the ground attack role.

I hope that all of this gives you some idea as to my reasoning.

submarine vs. submarine attack of 1

Their is no case in WW2 where this occurred. I don’t know any cases where two subs fought each other with deck guns or some kind of torpedo attack against another submerged sub until much latter in history at least potentially.

@Imperious:

submarine vs. submarine attack of 1

Their is no case in WW2 where this occurred. I don’t know any cases where two subs fought each other with deck guns or some kind of torpedo attack against another submerged sub until much latter in history at least potentially.

First, I am assuming that all submarines in A & A attack from periscope depth, not the surface.  That is the only way that the first strike rule for submarines can be justified.  If all subs are attacking on the surface then aircraft should be able to attack subs without a destroyer present, and all surface ships should get a free shot at the sub with no chance of reply, as most successful torpedo attacks occurred at ranges of less than 2,000 yards, point blank range for surface guns.  The attack chance is based on a submerged sub attacking a sub running on the surface, not submerged.  WW2 boats spent most of their time on the surface, submerging only to attack or avoid aircraft and surface ships.  The snorkel only came into use by the Germans in mid-1944, and did allow for diesel running while submerged.  If you wish, I will post a detailed discussion of WW2 submarine tactics and operational proceedures.  If you argue that all subs are always submerged, then they should have a movement of 1 sea zone every two turns, to reflect the very low speed of submerged running.  You cannot have it both ways.

As for a submerged submarine sinking a submerged submarine, the HMS Venturer sank the U-864 while both were submerged on February 6, 1945.  This is the first recorded case of a submerged sub being sunk by another submerged sub.  Both the US and the UK in the immediate postwar period began the development of hunter-killer subs designed specifically for submerged ASW engagement.  During WW2, British submarines sank 35 enemy submarines.  I will need to check on the totals for the other countries.

As a side note, the British built an entire class of submarines during WW1 specifically to attack German subs running on the surface.  The R class were small boats with the high underwater speed of 15 knots, and carried as armament six 18 inch torpedoes to give the maximun salvo against a submarine target.

First, I am assuming that all submarines in A & A attack from periscope depth, not the surface.  That is the only way that the first strike rule for submarines can be justified.  If all subs are attacking on the surface then aircraft should be able to attack subs without a destroyer present, and all surface ships should get a free shot at the sub with no chance of reply, as most successful torpedo attacks occurred at ranges of less than 2,000 yards, point blank range for surface guns.  The attack chance is based on a submerged sub attacking a sub running on the surface, not submerged.  WW2 boats spent most of their time on the surface, submerging only to attack or avoid aircraft and surface ships.  The snorkel only came into use by the Germans in mid-1944, and did allow for diesel running while submerged.  If you wish, I will post a detailed discussion of WW2 submarine tactics and operational proceedures.  If you argue that all subs are always submerged, then they should have a movement of 1 sea zone every two turns, to reflect the very low speed of submerged running.  You cannot have it both ways.

OK yes submarines attacked at periscope depth and then immediately submerged at the first sign of trouble. And what the ‘first strike’ idea is supposed to model. However, fighters didn’t have the tactic of attacking subs down until the mid war period and up until that time reconnaissance planes ( in our case bombers) were used as spotters for convoy or for wolf packs to hunt convoy system. Those snorkel types you mentioned are the type XXI Walter U-boat turbine system which could travel in some cases underwater faster than some allied destroyers ( about 16 knots). Also you have to know that a turn in AA is something like 4-6 months which is plenty of time to move around and not really effect its movement. The 2 movement point thing is for play balance issues because if naval vessels had unlimited range it would mess up the game because its already a highly abstracted strategic system.

As for a submerged submarine sinking a submerged submarine, the HMS Venturer sank the U-864 while both were submerged on February 6, 1945.  This is the first recorded case of a submerged sub being sunk by another submerged sub.  Both the US and the UK in the immediate postwar period began the development of hunter-killer subs designed specifically for submerged ASW engagement.  During WW2, British submarines sank 35 enemy submarines.  I will need to check on the totals for the other countries.

I knew you would bring up that example: but the game is representing one submarine as something like 20-40 submarines for each ‘piece’ and that is only one example near the last days of the war. Hardly anything to base a major principle of naval combat on IMO. The game has to reflect what actually happened as a matter of normal affairs during the war . All postwar developments wont help us model WW2.