Kola Peninsula 1953

[acbennett3]

In the below image we see one more sticky solution - in the far west we see a group of B-36's beginning their attack run while to the northeast 2 different Migs are being engaged by the escorts. As I said earlier, if I was playing the Soviet side I would not waste time tangling w/the escorts and instead go for the bombers. Hopefully I can tweak the automation to reflect this strategy later. But even so, if I did not have the escorts properly positioned, or worse they had run out of ammo/fuel, the Migs would have eaten the bombers for a late midnight snack (scenario local time at this pt approx 2300). In the end the Migs were handled and the bombers continued their bomb run unmolested.

[acbennett3]

In this last image we see one of the first northern inland targets being destroyed and the bomber beginning its RTB due to Winchester. In the northwest corner are the 2 bombers from Murmansk that are returning to base also.

[acbennett3]

I will play this scenario out to the end to see how many of the Kola Peninsula military installations can be destroyed and then how many US/NATO aircraft make it safely back to base. Then its time to see if I can make the Soviets more lethal...

[acbennett3]

Here's the end result - 1 heavily damaged base left. All others destroyed.

[acbennett3]

Here's the bombers returning to base - lead bomber is just about to go feet dry over Greenland.

[acbennett3]

Here are the losses/expenditures:
US F-84s 50% losses
US B-36s 15% losses

46 Migs Destroyed (some destroyed on the ground when their airfields were destroyed)
13 Airfields destroyed

[acbennett3]

WARNING: Ramblings of a novice military historian to follow

This is an interesting time period for aircraft. Some are still stuck in WW2, others are in transition, and some are fully in the new jet age. The B-36 was developed during WW2 and seems like the ultimate expression of that period. Turbo prop/large bomb load/long range. But one major difference in employment is the type of weapon carried. Instead of a large load of conventional bombs that require large groups of bombers to drop on single targets to ensure destruction - now they carry 1 or 2 "silver bullets" able to destroy an entire target/base/city. So from a destruction of the target point of view there is no need for large bomber formations. But there may still be a need for smaller formations for defense? Or does the speed/performance of the Mig-15 make that obsolete?

The F-84G in the scenario is still the straight wing version. It represents a transition - jet engine but still WW2 airframe design elements present. One on one it is not a match for the Mig-15 but in the flights I kept them in they are able to overpower the Migs by force of numbers/lead in the air. But not w/o losses.

The Mig-15 is definitely part of the beginning of the jet age. Speed, performance, and armament leave it with no real equal until the F-86. And sending a real jet versus "super" WW2 bombers is no match. If I either play, or can get the automated Migs to ignore the fighters and go full bore for the bombers things will probably turn out entirely different. As I mentioned in a previous thread, the first meeting between B-29's and Mig-15's over the N.Korean Namsi airbase is a historical precedent for this.

Thanks CMNAO for creating a simulation with the diversity/versatility to recreate this in relatively realistic manner.

I am really looking forward to using the first jet age bombers and adding early AAMs and SAMs to the mix.

[jomni]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

Without having access to the scenario, I would guess this was a case of the fighters being made available piecemeal rather than the runways bottling them up.

In offensive missions you can certainly have the attack group form up during take off and commit all at once rather the drip-dropping.

Can you have the AI aircraft launch as groups? Or is it you add and group them directly on the map?

[Dimitris]

Yes, if you assign a bunch of aircraft (same type, same loadout) to a strike mission, they'll take off and form up as a group and head out.

[Tomcat84]

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

I see AI fighters keep on being launched in the combat piecemeal, one per one, like in any Harpoon iteration. Is that completely hard coded, or are there ways (using the editor?) to make the AI player set up stronger fighter/strike groups?

It depends.

If you assign 12 jets to a patrol with the 1/3d rule, 4 will go airborne, as they get shot, piecemeal new ones will be launched to try and maintain the 4 jets (although i havent actually tested if it will try to retain the original 1/3rd, or as jets are shotdown it will keep diving 1/3rd for the new total (aka, 6 shotdown, remaining 6 try to be up just one pair at a time or still try for 4)

But, you can also setup 12 jets for a patrol mission without 1/3rd rule, set the mission to inactive, and have them be activated by a trigger of a certain side's planes (you can specificy any plane, or a type (like fighter or bomber) or a specific unit) entering a certain area and then they will all go at once. Of cours a limitation is how fast they can takeoff from their base.

For strikers you can make a mission, see all assigned planes go to takeoff status, then set mission to inactive, wait until everyone has taken off while the first ones just loiter, then reactivate the mission so they all go at once (rather than semi-piecemeal if you leave the mission active the whole time)

[jomni]

Thanks. I've seen them group up in strike but for patrol and CAP, I prefer the beeline. I think it's more effective, or am I wrong.

[hellfish6]

Real good AAR and interesting scenario. I've used interceptors on an AAW intercept mission and they launch in paired groups. From experience, it's one pair per bogey.

[acbennett3]

The above is similar to what I setup. Initially I had the Migs doing CAP/Patrol over their base areas (total of 5 PVO Bases) using a pool of 6 fighters each and the 1/3 rule active. So at any one time there were 2 fighters above an area defined around their base. They were also set to investigate contacts outside of their areas so they would prosecute contacts as they appeared.

I also created a large area covering all of Soviet airspace on the map (too large in the end - will tweak). When a US/NATO aircraft entered the area then a staggered launch of the remaining A/C At the bases occurred with a new patrol mission not using the one third rule. I plan on splitting that into a north and south airspace area and assigning the northern/southern airbases to the appropriate air space. This will prevent the far south airbases from sending fighters on a long and probably futile trip trying to respond to a far north contact.

I still have to figure out how to make the Migs ignore the NATO fighters after identification and not get sucked into a dogfight. Problem is only way to identify a/c type is mk1 eyeball. Instead they should blow by the fighters and only engage the bombers. Anyone know of a way to do this with the event engine? I will dig a little deeper.

My OOB for the Soviet PVO is more conjecture at this point until I get my hands on some hard reference data/material.

On a side note - I'm glad it never came to this in real life. When I was on a boomer we felt if we ever had to launch our SLBMs then we had failed in our primary mission - deterrence.

[acbennett3]

Here are some images from the Soviet side just to tie things up. First is what the Soviet radar operators were seeing as the wave of bombers started approaching.

[acbennett3]

I then focused on the Northern approach and took control of the Soviet side. I followed an ROE of evading US fighters after identification and continuing to search for/attack the bombers. Below is the result. The first group of 3 B-36D's have been shot down, while 2 groups of 3 Mig-15's are pursuing the other 2 groups of bombers.

[acbennett3]

The center group of B-36's were shot down - but their 20mm cannons were dangerous and got a few Migs. In this last image the last group of bombers is approaching the coast but being pursued by 4 Migs. Surprisingly in the end 2 Migs were shot down by 20mm fire, 1 Mig went Winchester, 1 Mig couldn't hit the broadside of a barn, and 1 bomber survived to begin its attack run on a coastal base.

[acbennett3]

2 things I would ask about/request coming out of this (and I will move this to the Mods/Scenarios section):

1. Can we have more detailed/user controllable ROE for A/C. Multiple times I had to manually drop targets/uncheck ignore plotted course on the fighters to get them to ignore the US fighters and go for the bombers instead. Whenever I reset attack/course they would keep trying to attack the US fighters even when the US bombers were closer. Is this a hard coded ROE for fighters - always attack the fighters first? It would be nice if this more detailed ROE could be set.

2. Already asked previously by others, but it would be nice to have the ability to set flight plans for A/C (course/speed/altitude). For example when I changed things on A/C many kept slowing down to Cruise speed.

Going to tweak the Soviet OOB, and events and upload to Mods/Scenario next.

Scenario download/thread:
tm.asp?m=3451931