GW Counterfactual Take 3.
Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets
Re: GW Counterfactual Take 3.
I like the new format; much more digestible.
I thought I knew how to play this game....
Re: GW Counterfactual Take 3.
Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Allied #1. MTO. Operation Husky. Pre Resolution Statics.
D-Day. Dawn. 1st wave starts landing at Yellow (Cassino) & Blue (Bari) Beaches.
The final estimates of operation success, losses & flips, which have been painfully reviewed, revised and finally blessed by senior allied commanders are sent encoded to the highest offices in London, Washington DC & Senegal.
The key estimates are:
(1) 72.7% chance of complete mission success (i.e., successfully established beachheads at both Yellow & Blue beaches (Cassino & Bari, respectively).
(2) 1.7% chance of utter failure (i.e., both landings repulsed with total loss of the invading forces of 3 corps & 3 divisions).
(3) 2.195 expected units lost.
(4) 1.570 expected flips.
(5) 2.235 expected surviving & organized.
D-Day. Dawn. 1st wave starts landing at Yellow (Cassino) & Blue (Bari) Beaches.
The final estimates of operation success, losses & flips, which have been painfully reviewed, revised and finally blessed by senior allied commanders are sent encoded to the highest offices in London, Washington DC & Senegal.
- 01-AL-Husky-Pre-Landing-Probabilities.png (16.03 KiB) Viewed 619 times
(1) 72.7% chance of complete mission success (i.e., successfully established beachheads at both Yellow & Blue beaches (Cassino & Bari, respectively).
(2) 1.7% chance of utter failure (i.e., both landings repulsed with total loss of the invading forces of 3 corps & 3 divisions).
(3) 2.195 expected units lost.
(4) 1.570 expected flips.
(5) 2.235 expected surviving & organized.
Ronnie
Re: GW Counterfactual Take 3.
Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Allied #1. MTO. Operation Husky. Combat Logs.
Husky is a complete success!
(1 & 2) Both beachheads successfully established.
(3) 1 unit (US 3rd inv div) lost -> 1.195 LESS than than expected.
(4) 4 of 5 surviving units flipped -> +2.43 Greater than expected.
(5) 1 of 5 surviving units organized -> 1.235 LESS than expected.
However; with a super-combine and unlimited air actions the USA was able to rebase two ATR C-47s skytrain wings from the Middle East to the Med and use one of those wings to reorg the US airborne (Bari) that flipped.
Husky is a complete success!
(1 & 2) Both beachheads successfully established.
(3) 1 unit (US 3rd inv div) lost -> 1.195 LESS than than expected.
(4) 4 of 5 surviving units flipped -> +2.43 Greater than expected.
(5) 1 of 5 surviving units organized -> 1.235 LESS than expected.
However; with a super-combine and unlimited air actions the USA was able to rebase two ATR C-47s skytrain wings from the Middle East to the Med and use one of those wings to reorg the US airborne (Bari) that flipped.
- 01-AL-Husky-Combat-Logs.png (207.61 KiB) Viewed 618 times
Ronnie
Re: GW Counterfactual Take 3.
Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Allied #1. MTO. Operation Husky.
Cassino (Yellow Beach).
Lesson learned. I had an "extra" CAG & 1/2 ground support that I didn't fly because 4.5 in this case rounds off to 5. However, by having a CAG with 1/2 tac shot down the CW lost that rounding and got only +4 factors added to their total. The lesson learned is that the RN/RAF should have flown this mission with the "extra" CAG & 1/2 tac as margin just in case they lost one (or 1/2 TAC), which they did. This cost the CW 1 attack factor and +0.5 on their their assault (i.e., +9 instead of +9.5). However; as it turns out if the CW would have had the additional attack factor and made their fractional odds roll (50% chance) this would have resulted in a modified 19 instead of 18 and meant the loss off 2 units vs 0. Very Interesting!
Cassino (Yellow Beach).
Lesson learned. I had an "extra" CAG & 1/2 ground support that I didn't fly because 4.5 in this case rounds off to 5. However, by having a CAG with 1/2 tac shot down the CW lost that rounding and got only +4 factors added to their total. The lesson learned is that the RN/RAF should have flown this mission with the "extra" CAG & 1/2 tac as margin just in case they lost one (or 1/2 TAC), which they did. This cost the CW 1 attack factor and +0.5 on their their assault (i.e., +9 instead of +9.5). However; as it turns out if the CW would have had the additional attack factor and made their fractional odds roll (50% chance) this would have resulted in a modified 19 instead of 18 and meant the loss off 2 units vs 0. Very Interesting!
- 01-AL-MTO-Cassino-GSPT-A2A.png (278.51 KiB) Viewed 616 times
- 01-AL-MTO-Cassino-GSPT.png (406.54 KiB) Viewed 616 times
- 01-AL-MTO-Cassino-LC-1.png (281.95 KiB) Viewed 616 times
Last edited by rkr1958 on Mon Mar 25, 2024 4:04 am, edited 3 times in total.
Ronnie
Re: GW Counterfactual Take 3.
Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Allied #1. MTO. Operation Husky.
Bari (Blue Beach).
Bari (Blue Beach).
- 01-AL-MTO-Bari-GSPT.png (390.94 KiB) Viewed 615 times
- 01-AL-MTO-Bari-LC-2.png (289.35 KiB) Viewed 615 times
- 01-AL-MTO-Reorg-Bari-Italy.png (307.9 KiB) Viewed 615 times
Ronnie
Re: GW Counterfactual Take 3.
Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Allied #1. MTO. Operation Husky.
End of Impulse (Post LC, Air Rebase & Reorg).
End of Impulse (Post LC, Air Rebase & Reorg).
- 01-AL-MTO-Italy-Husky-EOI.png (1.82 MiB) Viewed 614 times
Ronnie
Re: GW Counterfactual Take 3.
Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Allied #1.
Middle East.
0% partisan chance still after the rebase of the 2 USA C-47 Skytrain ATRs from Persia and Iraq to the MTO.
Western Front.
The US super-combine gives them to unlimited air actions to continue rebasing: (a) their long range bombers by air via US East Coast -> Greenland -> UK -> Med & (b) long range fighters via US East Coast -> Greenland -> Faeroes Islands -> UK.
Middle East.
0% partisan chance still after the rebase of the 2 USA C-47 Skytrain ATRs from Persia and Iraq to the MTO.
- 01-AL-Middle-East.png (1.92 MiB) Viewed 613 times
The US super-combine gives them to unlimited air actions to continue rebasing: (a) their long range bombers by air via US East Coast -> Greenland -> UK -> Med & (b) long range fighters via US East Coast -> Greenland -> Faeroes Islands -> UK.
- 01-AL-West-Super-Air-Rebase.png (1.37 MiB) Viewed 613 times
Ronnie
Re: GW Counterfactual Take 3.
Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Allied #1.
Eastern Front. Siberia.
Southern USSR.
Eastern Front. Siberia.
- 01-AL-Eastern-Siberia.png (1.42 MiB) Viewed 612 times
- 01-AL-Eastern-Southern.png (1.77 MiB) Viewed 612 times
Ronnie
Re: GW Counterfactual Take 3.
Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Allied #1.
China (Asian Theater).
China (Asian Theater).
- 01-AL-Asian-China.png (2.07 MiB) Viewed 611 times
Ronnie
Re: GW Counterfactual Take 3.
Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Allied #1. West Africa.
(1) US inf div able to capture Togo, Togo & will next impulse if the div has a land action (priority) capture Porto Novo (Dahomey).
(2) UK 2-3 inf div (if has land action priority) was capture Bingerville, Ivory Coast. Inf div MUST BE GIVEN THAT PRIORITY or risk having Ivory Coast Terr appear next turn complicating the situation in the Ivory Coast.
(3) Niger Vichy Terr is 2 impulses from Ouagaougon, Upper Volta. Though, given German will have to take a combine this turn 2 land moves for the Niger Terr is not a given.
(4) The out of supply UK 1-4 inf div is 2 impulses in the rain & 1 impulse in fine (or snow) north temperate from Ouagaougon. Will the Niger Terr be able to move on and get to Ouagaougon this turn?
(5) It's a low-conflict cat and mouse game (war) in West Africa.
(1) US inf div able to capture Togo, Togo & will next impulse if the div has a land action (priority) capture Porto Novo (Dahomey).
(2) UK 2-3 inf div (if has land action priority) was capture Bingerville, Ivory Coast. Inf div MUST BE GIVEN THAT PRIORITY or risk having Ivory Coast Terr appear next turn complicating the situation in the Ivory Coast.
(3) Niger Vichy Terr is 2 impulses from Ouagaougon, Upper Volta. Though, given German will have to take a combine this turn 2 land moves for the Niger Terr is not a given.
(4) The out of supply UK 1-4 inf div is 2 impulses in the rain & 1 impulse in fine (or snow) north temperate from Ouagaougon. Will the Niger Terr be able to move on and get to Ouagaougon this turn?
(5) It's a low-conflict cat and mouse game (war) in West Africa.
- 01-AL-West-Africa.png (1.37 MiB) Viewed 595 times
Ronnie
Re: GW Counterfactual Take 3.
Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Axis #4. Actions.
1. There’s an 80% chance Germany will have to take a combine.
a. U=8 German U-boat flotillas within detection range of at least one sea area with 6 or more allied CPs.
b. S=0 allied sea areas with at least 6 CPs and NO escorting SCS (i.e., SCS in 0-box).
c. A=1, 1st actual axis impulse of the turn.
d. If D10 < U + S + A = 9 then combine, thus 80%.
2. Italy has 6 organized Sub Gps (in port) that could with an Italian combine participate with Germany’s “wolfpacks”; however, allied landings in mainland Italy forces Italy to take a land to respond even if Germany takes a combine.
3. Well, let’s see if Germany must this impulse take this turn’s required combine (or naval).
a. D10 = 9, IS NOT < 9; therefore, Germany may defer.
b. Germany does indeed defer and takes a land.
c. This means that they’ll be a 90% chance that Germany will have to take their required per turn combine/naval next axis impulse, assuming the turn continues to a 2nd axis impulse (90% chance of that).
d. Donitz is very unhappy at what he sees is a missed opportunity for his U-boats to go after allied Atlantic convoys before the Western Allies have the chance for full ASW patrols & escorts (i.e., RN & Free French).
e. However; all other commands, including Italian commands, are relieved at being able to defer.
f. Especially the Italian Sub fleet who desperate wants to go hunting with the U-boat wolfpacks.
4. Imperial Japanese HQ mandates that the IJN control, in order of priority, China Sea, South China Sea & Sea of Japan. Control of Bismarck Sea has been ceded given the current situation.
5. Given the USN sorties in the China & South China Sea, and uncommitted RN Sub groups in the Pacific, maintaining supply lines through these vital 3 sea areas is at significant risk much less getting CPs out and RPs flowing (again) through to Japanese factories.
6. Therefore, Imperial Japanese HQ gives their blessing for a naval action even though this means the likely loss of Wewak (Territory of New Guinea) to the US 2nd marine div on the island northeast across the channel.
1. There’s an 80% chance Germany will have to take a combine.
a. U=8 German U-boat flotillas within detection range of at least one sea area with 6 or more allied CPs.
b. S=0 allied sea areas with at least 6 CPs and NO escorting SCS (i.e., SCS in 0-box).
c. A=1, 1st actual axis impulse of the turn.
d. If D10 < U + S + A = 9 then combine, thus 80%.
2. Italy has 6 organized Sub Gps (in port) that could with an Italian combine participate with Germany’s “wolfpacks”; however, allied landings in mainland Italy forces Italy to take a land to respond even if Germany takes a combine.
3. Well, let’s see if Germany must this impulse take this turn’s required combine (or naval).
a. D10 = 9, IS NOT < 9; therefore, Germany may defer.
b. Germany does indeed defer and takes a land.
c. This means that they’ll be a 90% chance that Germany will have to take their required per turn combine/naval next axis impulse, assuming the turn continues to a 2nd axis impulse (90% chance of that).
d. Donitz is very unhappy at what he sees is a missed opportunity for his U-boats to go after allied Atlantic convoys before the Western Allies have the chance for full ASW patrols & escorts (i.e., RN & Free French).
e. However; all other commands, including Italian commands, are relieved at being able to defer.
f. Especially the Italian Sub fleet who desperate wants to go hunting with the U-boat wolfpacks.
4. Imperial Japanese HQ mandates that the IJN control, in order of priority, China Sea, South China Sea & Sea of Japan. Control of Bismarck Sea has been ceded given the current situation.
5. Given the USN sorties in the China & South China Sea, and uncommitted RN Sub groups in the Pacific, maintaining supply lines through these vital 3 sea areas is at significant risk much less getting CPs out and RPs flowing (again) through to Japanese factories.
6. Therefore, Imperial Japanese HQ gives their blessing for a naval action even though this means the likely loss of Wewak (Territory of New Guinea) to the US 2nd marine div on the island northeast across the channel.
- 04-AX-Actions.png (28.81 KiB) Viewed 571 times
Ronnie
Re: GW Counterfactual Take 3.
Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Axis #4. Pacific Theater of Operation (PTO). IJN Naval Moves.
China Sea.
1. 6 CPs in port to China Sea[0] + 3 at sea (2 South China Sea[0], 1 Sea of Japan[0]).
2. Lifted Japanese production from 8 factories producing (12 BPs) to 14 producing (21 BPs).
3. "Supply" TRS that remained at sea moved from [2] -> [0] and embarked IJA 2nd armor corps headed for China and then to Manchuria 2 turns later (24JA43) for garrison duty.
4. IJN put out attack carrier task forces [4] & [3] to counter USN carrier attack force[4]
5. Also carrier task force[0] to protect vital shipping (CPs) & transport.
Sea of Japan.
No additional warships sent out.
South China Sea.
(1) Philippine evacuation. Yamashita HQ-I (headed for China), Imp Guard Mar corps (headed for Menado), 1st SNLF mar div (China), 2nd eng div (China).
IJN Sub Squadrons.
1. Arabian Sea[2]
2-3. Bay of Bengal[3],[2].
4. Looking to disrupt allied CBI convoy lines and break communication between Pacific & allies forces west (CBI, East Africa, Middle East).
China Sea.
1. 6 CPs in port to China Sea[0] + 3 at sea (2 South China Sea[0], 1 Sea of Japan[0]).
2. Lifted Japanese production from 8 factories producing (12 BPs) to 14 producing (21 BPs).
3. "Supply" TRS that remained at sea moved from [2] -> [0] and embarked IJA 2nd armor corps headed for China and then to Manchuria 2 turns later (24JA43) for garrison duty.
4. IJN put out attack carrier task forces [4] & [3] to counter USN carrier attack force[4]
5. Also carrier task force[0] to protect vital shipping (CPs) & transport.
- 04-AX-PTO-IJN-NM-1.png (1.55 MiB) Viewed 566 times
- 04-AX-PTO-JPN-Production.png (226.94 KiB) Viewed 566 times
No additional warships sent out.
South China Sea.
(1) Philippine evacuation. Yamashita HQ-I (headed for China), Imp Guard Mar corps (headed for Menado), 1st SNLF mar div (China), 2nd eng div (China).
- 04-AX-PTO-IJN-NM-2.png (1.87 MiB) Viewed 566 times
1. Arabian Sea[2]
2-3. Bay of Bengal[3],[2].
4. Looking to disrupt allied CBI convoy lines and break communication between Pacific & allies forces west (CBI, East Africa, Middle East).
- 04-AX-PTO-IJN-NM-3.png (95.8 KiB) Viewed 566 times
Ronnie
Re: GW Counterfactual Take 3.
Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Axis #2. PTO. China Sea. Naval Combat.
- 04-AX-PTO-China-Sea-Combat-Logs.png (54.1 KiB) Viewed 554 times
- 04-AX-PTO-China-Sea-NC-1.png (250.38 KiB) Viewed 553 times
- 04-AX-PTO-China-Sea-NC-1b.png (207.37 KiB) Viewed 554 times
- 04-AX-PTO-China-Sea-NC-1c.png (263.38 KiB) Viewed 554 times
Ronnie
Re: GW Counterfactual Take 3.
Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Axis #2. PTO. China Sea. Naval Combat.
- 04-AX-PTO-China-Sea-NC-1d.png (263.62 KiB) Viewed 552 times
- 04-AX-PTO-China-Sea-NC-1e.png (203.19 KiB) Viewed 552 times
- 04-AX-PTO-China-Sea-NC-1f.png (196.93 KiB) Viewed 552 times
Ronnie
Re: GW Counterfactual Take 3.
Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Axis #4. PTO. Naval Combat / Searches.
- 04-AX-PTO-NC-Other-CL.png (24.42 KiB) Viewed 550 times
- 04-AX-PTO-Bay-of-Bengal-NC-1.png (177.93 KiB) Viewed 550 times
- 04-AX-PTO-Arabian-Sea-NC-1.png (176.81 KiB) Viewed 550 times
Ronnie
Re: GW Counterfactual Take 3.
Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Axis #3. Asian Theater. China. Japanese Strategic Bombing.
- 04-AX-Asian-STRAT-Combat-Logs.png (25.1 KiB) Viewed 546 times
- 04-AX-Asian-Strat-1-Lanchow.png (313.64 KiB) Viewed 548 times
- 04-AX-Asian-Strat-2-Sian.png (350.29 KiB) Viewed 548 times
- 04-AX-Asian-CHI-Production.png (37.58 KiB) Viewed 548 times
Ronnie
Re: GW Counterfactual Take 3.
Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Asian Theater. Summary of Japanese Strategic Bombing of Chinese Factories (War To Date).
(1) 52 Raids, 26 Turns (to date) -> Avg of 2 raids/turn.
(2) 66 Factories Bombed ->Avg of 1.27 factories bombed per raid and 2.54 bombed per turn.
(3) 25 PPs (factory production) knocked out -> ~25 -> ~1 BP per turn, ~0.5 BP per raid.
(4) Cumulative Post Strategic Bombing Chinese Production = 57 BPs -> 25 / (25 + 57) = 25 / 80 = 30.5%
(5) Dedicated Japanese Strategic Bombing of Chinese factories has resulted in a 30.5% decrease in overall Chinese production.
(1) 52 Raids, 26 Turns (to date) -> Avg of 2 raids/turn.
(2) 66 Factories Bombed ->Avg of 1.27 factories bombed per raid and 2.54 bombed per turn.
(3) 25 PPs (factory production) knocked out -> ~25 -> ~1 BP per turn, ~0.5 BP per raid.
(4) Cumulative Post Strategic Bombing Chinese Production = 57 BPs -> 25 / (25 + 57) = 25 / 80 = 30.5%
(5) Dedicated Japanese Strategic Bombing of Chinese factories has resulted in a 30.5% decrease in overall Chinese production.
- Attachments
-
- 04-AX-Asian-JPN-STRAT-To-Date.png (252.47 KiB) Viewed 522 times
Ronnie
Re: GW Counterfactual Take 3.
Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. The Eastern Front. OKH -> OKW Impulse Orders.
1. Finnish front - maneuver. Deployment of 2 Finnish bomber units allows for 1 more Finnish unit to be move across the border against Murmansk.
2. Siberian Front - maneuver. 2 Army Groups (Manstein & Guderian). Flank Soviet Siberian fronts north and south.
3. Southern Army Groups. Blitz Grozny? Allocated up to 2 of the 4 Luftwaffe air actions (remain 2+ for rebase of FB wings from Germany to Italy), Italian transport (1 of 1 air action) for dropping FJR corps. There is no Soviet fighters in range to contest the Luftwaffe and no Soviet bombers in range to add defensive ground support.
Attack Planning (Southern Army Groups).
3a. Rommel can get 8 corps/divs with 44 AF vs the 2 Soviet armies in Grozny for an initial +4.833B (53.3% PWIN) using +1.5 HQ support from Rommel.
3b. With an airborne drop using the Italian bomber wing to transport the airborne the odds increase to +6.357B (66.9%). Which is a significantly higher PWIN but carries with it a 32.1% chance of losing the airborne corps if the blitz fails. However; Rommel instructs his planning staff that the blitz supported by the airborne drop is the starting point for this operation.
3c-d. There are 4 bomber and 2 fighter-bombers wings available. The two air support options are: (opt-1) use all for ground support or use 2 allocate air actions for 2 wing ground strike and the rest for ground support (base ground support) or (opt-2) use all for ground support (base+opt ground support).
3c. The odds with the base ground support increase to +7.357B (74.5%).
3d. With all ground support, the odds move to +7.929B (78.5%). Which Rommel rejects as too risky at this point in the turn and with 21.5% chance of losing his airborne corps. Therefore, Rommel decides to go with the 2 wing ground strike and the base ground support. That is, 7.357B + 2 wing ground strike results.
3e. There's a 31.4% chance that the ground strike will miss both Soviet armies, which leaves the blitz at +7.357B (74.5%), 49.2% that it flips 1 which is +9.357B (86.8%) and 19.4% flips both which is +11.357B (95.1%)
So, the success or failure of this blitz depends on the success or failure of the upcoming 2 wing ground strike. Well, actually the GO / NO-GO depends on the ground strike success because the ground strike occurs before any commitment of troops including the airbone to battle.
Rommel decides: (I) NO-GO if 0 flips, (II) GO if 2 flip & (III) GO if 1 of 2 flip. The GO for 1 flip was a bit hard to call but an aggressive Rommel isn't going to miss out a second chance to take Grozny with a 86.8% blitz.
NOTE: (a) Because off round-off the Finnish F/B (1/2=0.5 TAC) doesn't increase the number of ground support factors added in either the base or base+optional ground support cases. (b) Because of the rounding off of TAC factors I generally like to use odd TAC factors in weather (i.e., halved) for ground strikes. In this specific case the FW 190 G-3 F/B with 5 TAC rounds off to 3 and the He 111 with 3 to 2 in the snow.
1. Finnish front - maneuver. Deployment of 2 Finnish bomber units allows for 1 more Finnish unit to be move across the border against Murmansk.
2. Siberian Front - maneuver. 2 Army Groups (Manstein & Guderian). Flank Soviet Siberian fronts north and south.
3. Southern Army Groups. Blitz Grozny? Allocated up to 2 of the 4 Luftwaffe air actions (remain 2+ for rebase of FB wings from Germany to Italy), Italian transport (1 of 1 air action) for dropping FJR corps. There is no Soviet fighters in range to contest the Luftwaffe and no Soviet bombers in range to add defensive ground support.
Attack Planning (Southern Army Groups).
3a. Rommel can get 8 corps/divs with 44 AF vs the 2 Soviet armies in Grozny for an initial +4.833B (53.3% PWIN) using +1.5 HQ support from Rommel.
3b. With an airborne drop using the Italian bomber wing to transport the airborne the odds increase to +6.357B (66.9%). Which is a significantly higher PWIN but carries with it a 32.1% chance of losing the airborne corps if the blitz fails. However; Rommel instructs his planning staff that the blitz supported by the airborne drop is the starting point for this operation.
3c-d. There are 4 bomber and 2 fighter-bombers wings available. The two air support options are: (opt-1) use all for ground support or use 2 allocate air actions for 2 wing ground strike and the rest for ground support (base ground support) or (opt-2) use all for ground support (base+opt ground support).
3c. The odds with the base ground support increase to +7.357B (74.5%).
3d. With all ground support, the odds move to +7.929B (78.5%). Which Rommel rejects as too risky at this point in the turn and with 21.5% chance of losing his airborne corps. Therefore, Rommel decides to go with the 2 wing ground strike and the base ground support. That is, 7.357B + 2 wing ground strike results.
3e. There's a 31.4% chance that the ground strike will miss both Soviet armies, which leaves the blitz at +7.357B (74.5%), 49.2% that it flips 1 which is +9.357B (86.8%) and 19.4% flips both which is +11.357B (95.1%)
So, the success or failure of this blitz depends on the success or failure of the upcoming 2 wing ground strike. Well, actually the GO / NO-GO depends on the ground strike success because the ground strike occurs before any commitment of troops including the airbone to battle.
Rommel decides: (I) NO-GO if 0 flips, (II) GO if 2 flip & (III) GO if 1 of 2 flip. The GO for 1 flip was a bit hard to call but an aggressive Rommel isn't going to miss out a second chance to take Grozny with a 86.8% blitz.
NOTE: (a) Because off round-off the Finnish F/B (1/2=0.5 TAC) doesn't increase the number of ground support factors added in either the base or base+optional ground support cases. (b) Because of the rounding off of TAC factors I generally like to use odd TAC factors in weather (i.e., halved) for ground strikes. In this specific case the FW 190 G-3 F/B with 5 TAC rounds off to 3 and the He 111 with 3 to 2 in the snow.
- 04-AX-Eastern-AP-2.png (1.1 MiB) Viewed 515 times
Ronnie
Re: GW Counterfactual Take 3.
Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. The Eastern Front. Finnish Front (End of Impulse).
- 04-AX-Eastern-Finnish-Front.png (1.75 MiB) Viewed 509 times
Ronnie
Re: GW Counterfactual Take 3.
Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. The Eastern Front. Siberian Front (End of Impulse).
- 04-AX-Eastern-Siberian-Front.png (1.4 MiB) Viewed 508 times
Ronnie