A Discussion on Allied Airframe Numbers

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: Big B
I think that's a promising idea John... you might consider moving up the arrival date of squadrons just a tad - if that approach were taken...just to give them time to fill out with the aircraft they no longer come with...
Just a thought expanding on your idea.

Wonderful. It’s not shut down. Horray. Back to the sweeter smelling idea.

Big B’s thoughts are right in line with the basic idea. You get a bunch of squadrons, but have to fill them out. You get fewer planes arriving in units, but bigger pools. Some squadrons you might not want to fill out at all, but one can get at least some sqdns full-up and have some planes left over to replace losses. And the total number of airframes is the same.

I’m not too happy with restricted units scheduled to auto disband in just a few weeks or months (there are 10 B-17 sqdns that are on-map for only 21 days!!) arriving with front line a/c. I think those can be either eliminated or replaced with “training bombers” (tip ‘o the hat to LST for that one). There aren’t all that many, but they do tend to steal from the pools, if one isn’t careful, and all those a/c are lost forever when they auto disband.

That’s about it. Nothing too fancy, but it does kinda keep in line with stock, and gives a little bit more flexibility to the Allied player.

[PaxMondo]

I want to add a thought here, and I'm going to be a cautious as I can. I want to preface it with the fact that I do have the ability for the allies to pull forces from europe in my mod, so the concept of this thread is something that I am quite supportive of.

Having said that, I want to point out that while the IJ can produce more a/c sooner than historical, these aircraft are largely defensive. Looking at the recent AAR's that finished up, you don't see the IJ conquering the allies. What you see are the allies winning, but MUCH later. If you were to postulate a history where Midway does not happen, is that really outside of what would have happened? My opinion is NO. The allies had already (correctly) decided in spring of '42 that Europe First was the strategy and this was based primarily upon the fact that the IJ had no where to go beyond its' initial conquests. It was never going to take Pearl, or India. Aus was also highly unlikely. They simply did not have the economic force to do that. This is also true in game. With well matched players (like several recent AAR's), the IJ can't really consider taking India or OZ. If they try, they get really (and appropriately) hammered for that attempt.

Observing allied players, what I see is that they are frustrated that they are not winning in '44 in a situation where Midway never happened. I'm sorry to point out, but in '44 the allies did not have the assets present to win and would not have made them available unless India/Aus were threatened. I'm quite convinced that a 3 year stalemate would have been fine with Roosevelt/Churchhill/Stalin. Certainly, most historical data supports that. Now, in '45, with the war in Europe being all but won, you can make strong arguments that if the IJ had been a much stronger foe, then resources would have been diverted sooner than June 45.

Based upon the above, this is how I implemented the additional optional allied forces. Very little addiitonal in '42. A little bit more in '43. A touch more in '44. And then the flood gate really open in early '45. In addition, I jacked up the reserve forces if India/OZ/NZ are invaded. I lowered what actually show up in those locations, but I GREATLY increased what shows up in pools for the allies. 100's more planes and land devices. I really beleive that if any of those 3 had been threatened, a significant diversion would have ocurred no matter what ol' Joe said about it.

Anyway, just my thoughts. Let the piranha feed! [:D]

[wdolson]

Back to the original question posed by John. I can see arguments all over the place for changes in land based air, but for carrier type aircraft, I think production rates should be increased to accommodate any extra decks. It makes sense that if the Navy had more carrier capacity, production would have been scaled to fill the decks and supply replacement aircraft at a reasonable level.

The Fleet Air Arm was starved of support for a long time before the war and was behind the curve by a wide margin when the war came to them, but while the USN had some budget fights over aircraft procurement, they were generally on the margins of the budget debate and the carriers get close to enough aircraft. Especially after the 1940 Two Ocean Navy Act.

Bill

[Mundy]

ORIGINAL: wdolson
One thing you will run into in game if you don't lose as many American carriers in 1942 as in the real war is that you will have shortages of carrier aircraft by late 42. We really don't know if this would have happened in the real world or not because the US lost 2/3 of its carriers in 42.

I've encountered this one in my AI game. I am down two CVs, but even around mid '42, I'm forced to carry SBCs on at least one deck. I've just entered 1943, and can fill out the divebomber squadrons, but I don't think I could handle a beating yet.

I've had to take care to seriously control the upgrade of the VMB squadrons to help.

Against a real opponent, I never seem to have this luxury...

Ed-

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Back to the original question posed by John. I can see arguments all over the place for changes in land based air, but for carrier type aircraft, I think production rates should be increased to accommodate any extra decks. It makes sense that if the Navy had more carrier capacity, production would have been scaled to fill the decks and supply replacement aircraft at a reasonable level.

The Fleet Air Arm was starved of support for a long time before the war and was behind the curve by a wide margin when the war came to them, but while the USN had some budget fights over aircraft procurement, they were generally on the margins of the budget debate and the carriers get close to enough aircraft. Especially after the 1940 Two Ocean Navy Act.

Bill

Bill,

My understanding, and I am quite ready to be corrected, is that in '42 the gating item for all frontline US aircraft were engines. The factories were tooling up and were doing so at max rate. You could trade models, but you simply aren't going to get more aircraft. That's my understanding of the historical data. The engine gate went away on most models in by April '43.

Now if you want more of the 1930's models, those engine tools were available ....

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: wdolson
The Fleet Air Arm was starved of support for a long time before the war and was behind the curve by a wide margin when the war came to them, but while the USN had some budget fights over aircraft procurement, they were generally on the margins of the budget debate and the carriers get close to enough aircraft. Especially after the 1940 Two Ocean Navy Act.

Bill

I think that’s an excellent thought, Bill. Initial production would be predicated on the number of squadrons that needed to be equipped. As you suggest, we did have some room in the margins for some increase. I would suggest something along these lines:

A small increase in F4F-3 build to account for replacements in new squadrons that presumably will appear with full (1941) complement on opening day. A similar % increase for F4F-3As seems warranted.

I do believe, however, that we had a bitch of a time getting higher performance aircraft on-line, even for our IRL requirements. It was a matter of bug fixes and ultimately resource allocation between the army and navy; don’t forget that Naval Aviation assets were almost non-existent in what was supposed to be the primary theater of operations.

IRL, NavAir (infrastructure and resource allocation) was predicated on the situation in the Pacific. Ernie King was adamant on that point (and nobody messes with Ernie when he has a hard on, not even FDR), and Kent Hewitt recognized that even Torch would get NavAir hind-tit.

So, recognizing that the USN got everything it could conceivably get, IRL, and recognizing that the US industrial base was organized as best as it could be, IRL, one wonders where the early-mid-war margins for more USN airframes come from.

Just MHO

[John 3rd]

With my Treaty Mod adding a CVL and a second CLV, my intentions were to add more Buffalo and the SBD-1 or the SBC. Makes sense to me that the Fleet is larger and so it would be provided airframes to cover the needs. Add some extra sitting available in 'storage' and the American player is in somewhat better shape at war's start and the initial few months of conflict.

[btd64]

John, I have always been a, In my opinion, good manager. I learned in about my 4th or 5th game that managing airframes was important as the allies early in the war. About 3 years ago in one game I managed to keep all 6 CV's into the end of 42 and I did have frame shortages, But I MANAGED them carefully and had almost full squadrons on all CV's, and elsewere. P-40E and P-39 production has probably been the hardest to manage because those squadrons were always on the front, Taking losses. But I found a way to fix that to. I won't mention it here because its "eyes only" and I am at a point were I might want to do a PBEM and the other guy might be my apponent. Ops spelling.[:D] I guess what I am saying is that players with good management skills can make shortages work for them.[8D]
Cheers
PS I'm available for testing John.

[John 3rd]

Just might take you up on that offer General!

Appreciate the thoughts and comments.

[btd64]

John, just PM me. My current project is coming to a close so some extra time will be opening up.
Cheers

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Symon

ORIGINAL: wdolson
The Fleet Air Arm was starved of support for a long time before the war and was behind the curve by a wide margin when the war came to them, but while the USN had some budget fights over aircraft procurement, they were generally on the margins of the budget debate and the carriers get close to enough aircraft. Especially after the 1940 Two Ocean Navy Act.

Bill

I think that’s an excellent thought, Bill. Initial production would be predicated on the number of squadrons that needed to be equipped. As you suggest, we did have some room in the margins for some increase. I would suggest something along these lines:

A small increase in F4F-3 build to account for replacements in new squadrons that presumably will appear with full (1941) complement on opening day. A similar % increase for F4F-3As seems warranted.

I do believe, however, that we had a bitch of a time getting higher performance aircraft on-line, even for our IRL requirements. It was a matter of bug fixes and ultimately resource allocation between the army and navy; don’t forget that Naval Aviation assets were almost non-existent in what was supposed to be the primary theater of operations.

IRL, NavAir (infrastructure and resource allocation) was predicated on the situation in the Pacific. Ernie King was adamant on that point (and nobody messes with Ernie when he has a hard on, not even FDR), and Kent Hewitt recognized that even Torch would get NavAir hind-tit.

So, recognizing that the USN got everything it could conceivably get, IRL, and recognizing that the US industrial base was organized as best as it could be, IRL, one wonders where the early-mid-war margins for more USN airframes come from.

Just MHO

The SB2C and Corsair programs had a lot of problems. Grumman's had few teething problems. The Avenger was the only plane from the 1938 requirement that was available on schedule (the other two being the Corsair and the Helldiver). Grumman did amazing work whipping together the Hellcat in such a short time and with very few problems.

Douglas essentially doubled SBD production when they switched over from the -3 to -4 in mid-42. It finally allowed the Marines to start getting aircraft that weren't obsolete. I believe Grumman stepped up production of the F4F when the -4 was introduced, but not as dramatically as the SBD increase.

I like the idea of more obsolete aircraft around at start. If there were more decks in the 30s, there would have been aircraft for them. The TBD numbers should be bumped up too.

Up until Midway TBD losses were fairly light and the Navy had little trouble keeping enough flying for the fleet. TBFs were becoming available in quantity after Midway and all carrier squadrons switched over to the TBF very quickly in the summer of 1942.

Bill

[John 3rd]

Adding the TBD makes sense to me as well.

We allow American Training Squadrons in RA for the Army, Navy, and Marines so there are already SOME older airframes out there but I think bringing more to the game is a fine idea and it will be implemented within the new Mod.

Perhaps we could allow TBF arrive somewhat earlier? We could allow them to start a few months earlier to reflect that there wasn't any major production issues (unlike Corsair and SB2C).