Fighter Sweeps vs ground targets

Uncommon Valor: Campaign for the South Pacific covers the campaigns for New Guinea, New Britain, New Ireland and the Solomon chain.

Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid

Post Reply
Barlock
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 11:10 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Fighter Sweeps vs ground targets

Post by Barlock »

Just want to check something...

I'm on my 6th run through scenario 17 as allies vs AI (having never played PBEM yet) and I've just finished a turn in late 42 where I had for some reason set a marine fighter squadron flying F4F's to a sweep mission from Irau to Lunga and accidently set its altitude to 100ft.

Lo and behold wonderous results were to be had (for the allies anyway) with over 300 Japanese soldiers and 9 guns reported killed at Lunga as the result of strafing from the F4F's. All in a single mission from a single squadron with only average (60ish) experience. Ouch....(for the Japanese...yay for Allies) [:D]

I've seen similar results with fighter bombers once they get decent experience but I've never seen or even considered using dedicated fighters to do anything like this before in UV - which brings me to my questions:

1. How many other players use fighter squadrons on low level sweeps to strafe ground targets?

2. Is this a common tactic, or since the results seem a bit off, is it considered "gamey"?

3. Do fighter squadrons gain experience doing this or do they only get their experience through flying air - air missions / getting kills?
User avatar
rogueusmc
Posts: 4583
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 6:21 pm
Location: Texas...what country are YOU from?
Contact:

RE: Fighter Sweeps vs ground targets

Post by rogueusmc »

Good questions.
I'm gonna have to try this.
There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army

Image
User avatar
Rendova
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 3:12 am
Location: Atlanta

RE: Fighter Sweeps vs ground targets

Post by Rendova »

setting port attacks to 100ft also gives outragous results (so good its worth fly at 100ft and taking flak) This tatic isn't gamey fighter flew ground attack missions all the time, but be warned the results you see are probably a bit inflated
User avatar
barbarrossa
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:16 am
Location: Shangri-La

RE: Fighter Sweeps vs ground targets

Post by barbarrossa »

I ran a "sweep" yesterday on Munda that took out 817 Japanese with 24 F4U's.

That's a bit much!
"It take a brave soldier to be a coward in the Red Army" -- Uncle Joe

"Is it you or I that commands 9th Army, My Fuhrer?" -- Model
User avatar
Apollo11
Posts: 25220
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

RE: Fighter Sweeps vs ground targets

Post by Apollo11 »

Hi all,
ORIGINAL: Barlock

Just want to check something...

I'm on my 6th run through scenario 17 as allies vs AI (having never played PBEM yet) and I've just finished a turn in late 42 where I had for some reason set a marine fighter squadron flying F4F's to a sweep mission from Irau to Lunga and accidently set its altitude to 100ft.

Lo and behold wonderous results were to be had (for the allies anyway) with over 300 Japanese soldiers and 9 guns reported killed at Lunga as the result of strafing from the F4F's. All in a single mission from a single squadron with only average (60ish) experience. Ouch....(for the Japanese...yay for Allies) [:D]

I've seen similar results with fighter bombers once they get decent experience but I've never seen or even considered using dedicated fighters to do anything like this before in UV - which brings me to my questions:

1. How many other players use fighter squadrons on low level sweeps to strafe ground targets?

2. Is this a common tactic, or since the results seem a bit off, is it considered "gamey"?

3. Do fighter squadrons gain experience doing this or do they only get their experience through flying air - air missions / getting kills?


All my PBEMs have "House Rule" that forbids strafing at 100 ft against ground units due to excessive (and unrealistic) looses to attacked unit...


Leo "Apollo11"
Image

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
User avatar
LargeSlowTarget
Posts: 4909
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France

RE: Fighter Sweeps vs ground targets

Post by LargeSlowTarget »

Maybe it's FOW - has someone checked the receiving side for actual losses?
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Fighter Sweeps vs ground targets

Post by crsutton »

The results are almost always inflated if you are using FOW. Ground level bombing and strafing attacks are the most effective reguardless. They can be very effective againts grounded air units. (Historically, the Allies quickly discovered that the safest and most deadly attacks were at treetop level). Just remember that if the enemy loads up the base with AA-you will take a severe beating if you go in at 100 feet without softening up the base beforehand.

This is why you should play via email and not against the computer. A competent human opponent will protect important locations with lots of AA and CD units. You will only pick up bad habits playing solely against the AI.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
UndercoverNotChickenSalad
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Denial Aisle
Contact:

RE: Fighter Sweeps vs ground targets

Post by UndercoverNotChickenSalad »

where I had for some reason set a marine fighter squadron flying F4F's to a sweep mission from Irau to Lunga and accidently set its altitude to 100ft.

Thats was no accident, bro. I've noticed that when I set fighters to LRCAP, if I back them off from 100% committed it automatically switches them to sweep [&:] I have no idea why it does this. Try it you'll see I'm right. [8|] I'm running the latest version.
Image
User avatar
DoomedMantis
Posts: 1357
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

RE: Fighter Sweeps vs ground targets

Post by DoomedMantis »

This was tested and found that the results shown are highly inflated, so while yes you are killing troops, if you check the status of those troops you will find you didnt kill nearly half as many as you thought
I shall make it a felony to drink small beer.

- Shakespeare
User avatar
Subchaser
Posts: 1015
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 1:16 pm

RE: Fighter Sweeps vs ground targets

Post by Subchaser »

These results are not gamey, in reality sometime less fighters caused comparable damage to Japanese forces, and Japanese themselves were using strafing runs with great success early in war. I think sometimes we should see such devastating attacks in UV/WitP, but not on a regular basis, results should be random, from 3 men killed up to 500 out. When fighters were strafing troops in jungle, results were miserable, but when SoBs went out to open….
P-400 Airacobras save the day at Guadalcanal

(portion of an article on the 67th Fighter Squadron written by Gerard Pahl that appeared in Warbirds International, July/August 2002)

Blue flames licked from the burbling exhaust stacks of the three fighters as they waited at the end of the runway called Fighter One. Over-heating was a real problem for the Allison V-1710 V-12s and when the engine temp began to rise so did the anxiety of the pilots. Adding to their discomfort, the pilots were already sweating from the musty heat and humidity of the nearby jungle. With first light, the three Bell Airacobras were flashing down the runway - heading into the rising sun to attack minions of the Empire of the Rising Sun. The fighters would be participating in one of the bloodiest engagements of the battle for Bloody Ridge. It was 14 September 1942.

Not long before their takeoff roll, Capt. John A. Thompson had reported to the "Pagoda" for his briefing - Col. Merrit Edson's Raider Battalion was barely hanging on to an elevated perimeter ridge which defended the southern approach to Henderson Field on Guadalcanal. The Marines had survived two nights of vicious attacks by Maj. Gen. Kiyotake Kawaguchi's brigade as well as bombardment from both sea and air. The leathernecks had only about 300 men left in their ranks, all of them prepared to fight to the end or blend into the forest to continue with a guerrilla war.

Captain Thompson and his two wingmen, Lt. B.E. Davis and Lt. Bryan Brown, had barely cleared the palms at the end of the runway, banking to the right when they had the bloody battle ground in sight. At the briefing a Marine officer, caked with the grime and dried blood of two days of almost continuous combat, had given the captain the relative positions of the American and Japanese troops on a crude map. Edson's 800+ men were fighting approximately the 1700 to 2000 Japanese troops that remained from a force of 2500 that actually made it to the ridge. The exhausted Japanese troops were getting ready for another attack - trying to break through the defensive line and capture the airfield. Without warning, the three P-400s swept in at tree top level! Thompson knew that to achieve maximum effect with his cannons and machine guns, the three would have to get as low to the ground as possible. The shark-toothed pursuits roared over the Japanese, guns blazing. Each plane was firing one 20mm cannon, two .50-caliber, and four .30-caliber Browning machine guns. Even with their different trajectories, considering the altitude and attitude at which the P-400s were flying, the withering fire decimated the regrouping enemy troops. Like a scythe, the Airacobras mowed down the Japanese soldiers with a wide swath all along the ridge.

The first pass was a surprise to Maj. Gen. Kawaguchi's men, but they had time to prepare for the next. As Thompson, Davis and Brown swept around for another attack, every pistol, rifle and machine gun available was pointed skyward. Again, the P-400s came in just a few feet above their victims, spraying the entire southern ridge with a barrage of bullets - this time, however, they were met with an equally intensive amount of small arms fire. Some of the Japanese soldiers, puddled into limp pieces of flesh, ending as mounds of congealed tissue on the ground. Others flew through the air as the larger bores tore at their bodies and mixed their blood with the volcanic mud of the island they would never leave.

In their dying efforts, however, they too drew blood from the enemy - this time in the farm of glycol bleeding from the radiator of Brown's craft. The young lieutenant had no other choice but to break off the attack and try to make it back to Henderson - these three P-400s were the only ones the Cactus Air Force had left.

Dank air mixed with the pungent smell of cordite leaving a coarse, bitter taste in Thompson's and Davis's nostrils and mouths as the remaining two aircraft swung around for another pass. Both planes had absorbed ground fire with no noticeable effect but the nerves of the pilots must have been jumping with electricity. As knots formed in their stomachs they continued their merry-go-round attack, but there was nothing merry about it. On the third run, the two remaining Airacobras came in so low it seemed they could have cut down the enemy with their propeller blades alone. The staccato of the machine gun fire counter pointed by the hesitating booms of the cannons had the same horrible effect as before. Some bodies exploded with the impact while others withered to the ground from the rifle-caliber machine guns. With no other option, the hapless Japanese returned fire, again with effect. This time Thompson had a stream of vapor trailing his aircraft as he too used the momentum of his attack to make it back to Fighter One.

Being in the only airworthy P-400 left on this Godforsaken island and the only plane that would withstand the entire fusillade of the enemy's wrath during another strafing run, one would forgive Lt. Davis if he gave up the attack and returned to base. But Davis knew that the Japanese had to he stopped. If not, Henderson would he lost and if Henderson was lost, Guadalcanal would be lost and if Guadalcanal was lost, the supply lines from the United States to Australia would he lost – he went in for another lonely pass.

The lieutenant continued his attacks and with each pass there was less and less returning small arms fire. Finally, he exhausted the ammunition and in his wake and the wake of the previous P-400s before him lay the now lifeless bodies of reportedly over 600 of Kawaguchi's finest. In this final action, the back of the Japanese advance was broken and the demoralized enemy retreated. For all intent and purposes, Guadalcanal was lost to the Empire and in essence, the Japanese had marched up to the line in the sand and were stopped dead in their tracks - they would never advance further east of Guadalcanal again. They would continue the struggle for this southern Solomon island, landing hundreds of men and tons of materials, the campaign was realistically lost and inexperienced American fighting men who only months before had been working in Montgomery Wards or pumping gas had won America's first amphibious operation against a seasoned enemy, hitherto thought to have been invincible.

Later, Maj. Gen. Alexander Vandergrift said that what the three airmen did would never make the newspapers, but that they saved Guadalcanal. Thompson received the Navy Cross while Brown and Davis received Silver Stars - they should have all been awarded Medals of Honor.

In fact Kawaguchi losses were not so severe, but caused by just 3(!) fighters.
Image
User avatar
Odin
Posts: 1045
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Germany, Wanne-Eickel

RE: Fighter Sweeps vs ground targets

Post by Odin »

An older Thread regarding this kind of results:

tm.asp?m=441327&mpage=1&key=&#441327441327
Image
User avatar
barbarrossa
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:16 am
Location: Shangri-La

RE: Fighter Sweeps vs ground targets

Post by barbarrossa »

That's really good to know about the "house rule" on the PBEM games.

Strafing is not something that I would really do as a tactic, it was just a "let's see what happens".

Playing BTR kind of "cures" you of wanting to run strafing missions. [:)]
"It take a brave soldier to be a coward in the Red Army" -- Uncle Joe

"Is it you or I that commands 9th Army, My Fuhrer?" -- Model
User avatar
Apollo11
Posts: 25220
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

RE: Fighter Sweeps vs ground targets

Post by Apollo11 »

Hi all,
ORIGINAL: barbarrossa

That's really good to know about the "house rule" on the PBEM games.

Strafing is not something that I would really do as a tactic, it was just a "let's see what happens".

Playing BTR kind of "cures" you of wanting to run strafing missions. [:)]

There were nice old threads about "House Rules" but all those were lost when Matrix was attacked by hacker... [:(]


Leo "Apollo11"
Image

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
User avatar
denisonh
Posts: 2083
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Upstate SC

RE: Fighter Sweeps vs ground targets

Post by denisonh »

At least you strafing planes don't keep attacking relentlessly despite losses then fly off to act as target drones in UV[:D].
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
Post Reply

Return to “Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific”