Are Aircraft Underpowered?

Are Aircraft Underpowered?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Keith

Mongoose
By way of a test Kevin and I played a battle simulating the Japanese attack on the HMS Repulse and HMS Pince of Wales. We chose this because it was the simplest historical example of Naval air combat we could find. The Japanese planes chose not to attack the destroyers for historical accuracy.

Historical Outcome
The two British ships, escorted by 2 destroyers were attacked by 36 bom armed and 50 torpedo ared Nell and Betty bombers. After approximately 2 hours (Kevin did the histiorical research of exact times, number of waves etc. which I am unable to quote off the top of my head) both battle ships were on their way to Davey Jone's locker while one Japanese aircraft had been shot down. However, the loss of the Prince of Wales could be attributed to a lucky Torpedo hit.

Assumptions/Conversion
According to my calculations these aircraft equated to 8 Torpedo armed Bettys (the nell was an earlier versiion of this plane) and 6 flights of bomb armed Bettys (2AD, 3DD untraited - based on the stats of one of the level bombers in the game. We believe that, if anything, this overstates the power of the planes actually used if based on the current game design.

Game 1 Outcome
Based on the rules as currently stated the game lasted 3 turns (approx 1 1/2 hours assuming 30 minute turns - about right). The Prince of Wales was almost unharmed whilte the Repulse had lost about half its hits. Each attack run (5 in all) resulted in the loss of 1 or 1.5 flights.

Game 2 Outcome
In this game we tripled the number of aircraft flights and the number of flights allowed to attack in a single run. (This has been one suggestion to uprate aircraft).This game also lasted 3 turns, the Prince of Wales was reduced to about half hits whilst the Repulse was sunk. Each attack run (5 in all) resulted in the loss of 1 or 1.5 flights (but out of 9 rather than 3).

Conclusion
Comparing the games the second seamed most historically accurate, given the lucky hit actually made.
While this might suggest that aircraft are underpowered this must be put in the context of a playable tabletop game. WWII naval warefare was more about finding and bringing the enemy to combat (not touched on by the VaS system) rather than the actual battle (IMO a good quick play representation for battleship engaegments; the jury is still out for Cruisers and Destroyers; needs work for carrier actions [but I have a cunning plan]).

Historical Background
This is particularly true of carrier actions. If a carrier was ever approached by a naval formation it would withdraw behind a screen of its escorts. In game terms the Carrier would not be on the table with its enemy, in fact I am not aware of any battle in which aircraft attached an enemy formation that was also being engaged by surface vessels. This is probably because identification of the enemy was a problem when friendly ships were anywhere near. I could be wrong so feel free to correct me.
(Example 1
Swordfish from HMS Ark Royal actually attacked a British cruiser, not even another battleship when hunting the Bismark! Fortunately the planes were carrying dud torpedoes so no harm was done.
Example 2 - of interest but not a perinant as example 1
At one point during Midway the Japanes thought they had sunk all the carriers in the American force. In fact it was just 3 separate attacks on USS Yorktown each leaving it ablaze).
 
Another Historical Example of the devistation cause by Naval Airpower.

Midway. A single US Squadron of Dautless dive bombers (12 planes I think) attacked Nagumos main carrier strike force consiting of 4 strike carriers; Akagi, Hiryu, Kaga and Soryu (4 of the 6 used to attack Pearl Harbour).
In the course of 6 minutes 2 Japanese Carriers were sunk and a third was left ablaze. Admittedly the carriers had armed planes on deck and the defensive fighter CAP (Combat Air Patrol) had been exhausted by 3 previous unsuccessful air attacks.

This was arguably the most decisive five minutes in the History of War.

It would not make a very good table top battle (particularly if you were playing the Japanese) and from a gameing persepective should only be possible with a series of lucky criticals.
 
Keith said:
This was arguably the most decisive five minutes in the History of War.

Actually, I would limit that to the Pacific...
a somewhat obvious statment.
It should be also noted that Nagumo and Japanesse intellegence weren't exactly paying attention to the details the should have been. If Japanesse intellegence had flagged the transmission (uncoded and on open channels) that Midways water purifier was out of order then they would have expected an USN attack.
Nagumo should have launched his attack on the US CV's with the bombs the second that the US CVs were spotted. It may not have sunk the CVs but the bombs would have made a mess of the flight decks.
Also they had the Subs to the south. I would argue that the deployment of submarines south of midway was the deciding factor. The subs should have been deplyed to the western flank of the CVs. The CVs were coming out blind from a storm front. It might be argued that Yamamoto botched the operation with that one decision. But then again, there were many factors that led to the result achieved.
 
Keith wrote:
This was arguably the most decisive five minutes in the History of War.

True but you pointed out the fact that there were 3 unsuccessful attacks earlier, in which the USN lost a lot of planes and, men.

You also point out:
Admittedly the carriers had armed planes on deck and the defensive fighter CAP (Combat Air Patrol) had been exhausted by 3 previous unsuccessful air attacks.

They had no CAP at all they were still out chasing down the earlier attacks and tryiong to regroup.

I like the battle reports though, I don't think that they are far off the mark.
And Joe Dracos as an aside: I have always love the sound of the name Saskatoon :) Is it a beautiful up there as some of the pictures I've seen?
 
Joe_Dracos said:
Keith said:
This was arguably the most decisive five minutes in the History of War.

Actually, I would limit that to the Pacific...
a somewhat obvious statment.

I wouldn't even go that far. I would say probably the two and a half minutes bracketing the dropping of each atomic bomb . . . but whatever! :)
 
Though I have only fought against aircraft once, and not used any in a face to face game, my thoughts on aircraft are:

1: I think increasing AD will not solve the perceived deficiency. Most posters would like to see this doubled to 2AD but will this really make a difference? Perhaps increased to 3AD, but that seems "over the top"

2: Increase the number of flights which can attack at once. AA seems to be much more assertive in the game than in the accounts I have read (and I play mostly IJN- pathetic AA :lol: )

3: Along with increasing number of flights which may attack a target, carrier ops need to be addressed as far as recovery/reloading, or as an alternative:increase number of flights available to each carrier.
 
Captain_Nemo said:
Is it a beautiful up there as some of the pictures I've seen?

What part of the province would you be talking about... there is a surprising amount of difference here. Even around Saskatoon, we have a small patch of woodland to the south (and I do mean small), the terrain becomes surprisingly hill to the east and off in the west there is a large expanse of plains. Sunset/rise is awesome though...

We have an anual convention up here. Since I'm an MI trooper there is talk of a tournament in the fall. Maybe you might get to see for yourself.
 
Soulmage said:
Joe_Dracos said:
Keith said:
This was arguably the most decisive five minutes in the History of War.

Actually, I would limit that to the Pacific...
a somewhat obvious statment.

I wouldn't even go that far. I would say probably the two and a half minutes bracketing the dropping of each atomic bomb . . . but whatever! :)

It is unlikely that the atomic bombs caused the surrender of Japan, a single firebomb attack caused far more casualties and damage then BOTH atomic bombs.
 
"sunk" is a strong and emotive term :) - in fact NONE of them were "sunk" in those 5 minutes. They were lost to secondary damage effects over many hours and abandoned. In several case their ability to float was unaffected and they could have been recovered had they been damaged in more benign circumstances.
 
It is unlikely that the atomic bombs caused the surrender of Japan, a single firebomb attack caused far more casualties and damage then BOTH atomic bombs.

On the contrary, I believe it was highly likely. Until the point the bombs were dropped the japanese were prepared to fight it out. The obvious devestation caused by a single bomb was the decisive factor in changing the minds of the Emperor and his staff.
 
3 AD for aircraft is fine, if they get through your AA cover they can still miss... soemthing mine seem to do far to often!
 
I'd have to say no personally, I'm running with kreigsmarine and the 109's & 190 are fine, the stuka is ok but given the choice of a u-boat or 3 stuka's I'd take the stuka's for the laugh factor! :wink:
 
Joe_Dracos wrote:
What part of the province would you be talking about... there is a surprising amount of difference here. Even around Saskatoon, we have a small patch of woodland to the south (and I do mean small), the terrain becomes surprisingly hill to the east and off in the west there is a large expanse of plains. Sunset/rise is awesome though...

The plains, I love wide open spaces! And the sky! I love stargazing, St. Louis is Way too humid and well lit most of the time, to really enjoy the stars.

Back to the topic at hand:

I still think the aircraft stuff is OK. if you think about it; the carrier became king not because of its ability to sink ships, but because of its long range strike capability. It takes beaucoup effort for the planes to do their job ships don't sink easy. Even surface engagements were iffy unless they were really close and tied down by terrain

I mean to say more but my Chili's gonna burn!

Gotta go :)
 
It is unlikely that the atomic bombs caused the surrender of Japan, a single firebomb attack caused far more casualties and damage then BOTH atomic bombs.

Actually they did cause the surrender of Japan. You've been the victim of some anti-nuke propaganda I think.

Yes, the firebombing attacks were actually causing more casualties, but it was the psychological impact of the one bomb per city devastation and the terror of a new and powerful weapon that made Japan throw in the towel.


Edit:
On the contrary, I believe it was highly likely. Until the point the bombs were dropped the japanese were prepared to fight it out. The obvious devestation caused by a single bomb was the decisive factor in changing the minds of the Emperor and his staff.

Ahh. . . I see DM is on top of things as usual.
 
Captain_Nemo said:
The plains, I love wide open spaces! And the sky! I love stargazing, St. Louis is Way too humid and well lit most of the time, to really enjoy the stars.

Well, here in the city, you have much the same problem. But out in the country..... lets just say you walk out 30 ft away from the city and suddenly things up in the sky become much more spectatular! We actually have a farmer who refuses to sell his land to the city, so there is a pocket of undeveloped land and the city planers expected the farmer to cave, so we have half an inner city park and then an unlit open feild leading into open prarie... Its fairly specatular to watch the lyanid (don't think I spelt that right) meteor showers out there.
 
Back
Top