Ju 87 for RHS-EOS?

[Dili]

Good points. But i dont have an answer to most of them. Note that a fighter bomber dont have recon capability while if i am not mistaken a dive bomber have.
 
I think that a NF will have at least a night bonus so there would not be a reason to have it. But i dont know the real combat results.

[Mifune]

Dili is correct with dive bombers have the recon capability.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Perhaps it's the cultural difference, but where I come from, this wouldn't be an adequate answer to a "normal" question. Far from it, we in Germany consider this as an insult:

Why not just make a plane called F-4 or F-22? Once we go into fiction - well where do you draw the line?

Did I ask to do something fictional? Did I ask to put some non existant planes into the game or to boost some ACdata without any realistic background?

REPLY: And I thought I understood German - not just linguistically but culturally as well (being forced to memorize Goethe and Schiller, learn to cook, classify the wine, none of which were normal - and the latter not even legal in US schools - but I did them all). Further, I did not understand your intention. Indeed, the idea that IJN lacks for long range escort fighters is mysterious to me: no other nation has as good a long range naval day fighter than Japan does.


Nightfighters were used in daytime missions as well as vice versa! I.e. the Luftwaffe used Me 110 NF in the early times of the bomb offensive against 4e as they had such an enourmus arement. On the other hand, there were the "Wilde Sau" missions.

REPLY: Well - yes they were used - disasterously more often than not - one authority calls it "ludicrous" that the Me-110 "escort fighter" had itself to be escorted by Me-109s. [Greene] But they indeed did. I think you should have that option - although I would not advise you to use it. If you think this is acceptable, why are you not looking at Ki-83 for a late war aircraft, Ki-45 Ia and b for early war aircraft, and Ki-45 II for mid war aircraft? For that matter, I consider the Ki-84 to be a fine escort fighter of the land based sort - and far better than any twin engine aircraft could/would be.

In witp, NF can't do the same missions as usual fighters.

REPLY: Quite true - and that quite deliberately - so players won't do things with them real commanders would not - or should not do. I don't like to protect players from being foolish - and worse prevent them from doing something that works in a special situation - but I didn't write the code.

When I am the Japanese commander and see a lack of long range escorts for ships - which exist - I would look at the existing planes and think which ones would be the best compromise for that missions.

REPLY: There is no such lack. In the beginning you have the A6M2. Later on you have a variety of options. I don't think you have studied the aircraft closely enough.

In EOS, the Ju-88 is added. It has a good range and (can be equipped with) heavy armement. It would be quite usual descicion to use this plane for LR-CAP, too - when there's no alternative.

Is this idea such outrageous, that you need to answer so impolite?

REPLY: On principle, it is never my intention to be impolite. If you wish, I will strike the comments.



Something different:
Do FB/F and DB have the same accuracy while bombing? I mean when they have the same data and XP. If yes, wouldn't it be possible to design the new Ju 88 as FB than as DB?

The manual says that a fighter bomber is not as good as a fighter nor as a bomber. This seems to be true. For one thing, as a bomber it gets to carry bombs to extended range. As a fighter bomber, it will not carry bombs to extended range at all. That said, the Ju-88 is a Zorester of some merit - and as a twin engine plane it won't be a great fighter - although it probably is a serious threat to a big bomber. It might be OK to rate it as a fighter bomber - if you are willing to dilute it as a bomber. It has so many bombs - it might even be a good idea - so it does not tend to dominate the game.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Good points. But i dont have an answer to most of them. Note that a fighter bomber dont have recon capability while if i am not mistaken a dive bomber have.

I think that a NF will have at least a night bonus so there would not be a reason to have it. But i dont know the real combat results.

As there is - I guess - no possibility to design a plane that it uses gunpods when on CAP instead of the bombs, the Ju 88 DB doesn't make sense as a FB. It's armement is to weak.

But the NF would really be interesting. Or look at the Myrth NF: What would you prefer?
a) No CAP over your ships or
b) Myrth flying CAP over your ships?

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Perhaps it's the cultural difference, but where I come from, this wouldn't be an adequate answer to a "normal" question. Far from it, we in Germany consider this as an insult:

Why not just make a plane called F-4 or F-22? Once we go into fiction - well where do you draw the line?

Did I ask to do something fictional? Did I ask to put some non existant planes into the game or to boost some ACdata without any realistic background?

REPLY: And I thought I understood German - not just linguistically but culturally as well (being forced to memorize Goethe and Schiller, learn to cook, classify the wine, none of which were normal - and the latter not even legal in US schools - but I did them all). Further, I did not understand your intention. Indeed, the idea that IJN lacks for long range escort fighters is mysterious to me: no other nation has as good a long range naval day fighter than Japan does.

You mean the A6M2 or the Ki-43 II?
The A6M2 is obsolete after some month and the Ki-43 II is obsolete from the beginning. Compared with Mustang, Thunderbolt or Lighting, there is no Japanese fighter any longer.

Nightfighters were used in daytime missions as well as vice versa! I.e. the Luftwaffe used Me 110 NF in the early times of the bomb offensive against 4e as they had such an enourmus arement. On the other hand, there were the "Wilde Sau" missions.

REPLY: Well - yes they were used - disasterously more often than not - one authority calls it "ludicrous" that the Me-110 "escort fighter" had itself to be escorted by Me-109s. [Greene] But they indeed did. I think you should have that option - although I would not advise you to use it. If you think this is acceptable, why are you not looking at Ki-83 for a late war aircraft, Ki-45 Ia and b for early war aircraft, and Ki-45 II for mid war aircraft? For that matter, I consider the Ki-84 to be a fine escort fighter of the land based sort - and far better than any twin engine aircraft could/would be.

you are wrong. I don't talk about the battle of Britain or of the Westfeldzug - I talk about the times when the US bomb offensive has started while their escorts had to fly home after crossing the channel.
In this times without any threat of enemy fighters, the Zerstörer did a good job against the bombers.

REPLY: Quite true - and that quite deliberately - so players won't do things with them real commanders would not - or should not do. I don't like to protect players from being foolish - and worse prevent them from doing something that works in a special situation - but I didn't write the code.

So tell me what is foolish in using NF or twin engined FB to protect ships against enemy bombers when the alternative would be no CAP?

REPLY: There is no such lack. In the beginning you have the A6M2. Later on you have a variety of options. I don't think you have studied the aircraft closely enough.

Ki-45: range of 6, really impressive [8|] - especially when the enemy bombers carry a lethal load for a range of over 10 hex...
Ki-83: Yeah, nice! But when it comes in 3/45, how much of the fleet is left that they can protect?

The manual says that a fighter bomber is not as good as a fighter nor as a bomber. This seems to be true. For one thing, as a bomber it gets to carry bombs to extended range. As a fighter bomber, it will not carry bombs to extended range at all. That said, the Ju-88 is a Zorester of some merit - and as a twin engine plane it won't be a great fighter - although it probably is a serious threat to a big bomber. It might be OK to rate it as a fighter bomber - if you are willing to dilute it as a bomber. It has so many bombs - it might even be a good idea - so it does not tend to dominate the game.

it can't carry both: much bombs AND much guns, so this idea doesn't need to be followed.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: Dili

Good points. But i dont have an answer to most of them. Note that a fighter bomber dont have recon capability while if i am not mistaken a dive bomber have.

I think that a NF will have at least a night bonus so there would not be a reason to have it. But i dont know the real combat results.

As there is - I guess - no possibility to design a plane that it uses gunpods when on CAP instead of the bombs, the Ju 88 DB doesn't make sense as a FB. It's armement is to weak.

But the NF would really be interesting. Or look at the Myrth NF: What would you prefer?
a) No CAP over your ships or
b) Myrth flying CAP over your ships?

What is a Myrth? [Sounds like a Mothra in the Godzilla world]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: Historiker

nation has as good a long range naval day fighter than Japan does.

You mean the A6M2 or the Ki-43 II?
The A6M2 is obsolete after some month and the Ki-43 II is obsolete from the beginning. Compared with Mustang, Thunderbolt or Lighting, there is no Japanese fighter any longer.

I think you should look at Ki-83, Ki-84, Ki-100, Ki-64, Ki-102, just to name the JAAF products. I regard the Ki-84 as a superior escort fighter and also an effective fighter bomber (because it is classified as a fighter it does all missions well). I think the Ki-44 III is nearly fantastic. And we have not begun to talk about Navy fighters. Lots of choices. Depends on the mission which is best. Lots of choices: you want carrier fighters: the Ki-44 III is one, the A7M is one. Land based you have George and Jack - and the J7W eventually - a fantastic figher.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

So tell me what is foolish in using NF or twin engined FB to protect ships against enemy bombers when the alternative would be no CAP?

REPLY: There is no such lack. In the beginning you have the A6M2. Later on you have a variety of options. I don't think you have studied the aircraft closely enough.

Ki-45: range of 6, really impressive [8|] - especially when the enemy bombers carry a lethal load for a range of over 10 hex...
Ki-83: Yeah, nice! But when it comes in 3/45, how much of the fleet is left that they can protect?

Two engine fighters - except only the Ki-64 about to be introduced - and the Pfiel in Germany also excepted - never compete well with single engine fighters. The nearest thing to an exception is the P-38 - and it had better not tangle in the furball. The problem is maneuverability due to angular momentum - goes with the configuration.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

REPLY: There is no such lack. In the beginning you have the A6M2. Later on you have a variety of options. I don't think you have studied the aircraft closely enough.

Ki-45: range of 6, really impressive [8|] - especially when the enemy bombers carry a lethal load for a range of over 10 hex...
Ki-83: Yeah, nice! But when it comes in 3/45, how much of the fleet is left that they can protect?

Ki-45a range is 24 - not 6. It has an extended range of 8 and a normal range of 6. This is probably better than the Me-110 you talk about above. It isn't horrible by any means - and can protect some ships. I don't particularly like the Ki-45 - but it is in the game because others do like it - Nemo in particular had me ADD versions of it. Eventually - in Ki-83 and Ki-102 forms - it becomes very good indeed. You just have to wait for engines to catch up.

But the plane I think you should look at is the Ki-64 - 2 engines but behaves like a 1 engine - and with tanks - nice range. Still - if you don't like a normal range of 6 - you won't like it at 4.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: Dili

Good points. But i dont have an answer to most of them. Note that a fighter bomber dont have recon capability while if i am not mistaken a dive bomber have.

I think that a NF will have at least a night bonus so there would not be a reason to have it. But i dont know the real combat results.

As there is - I guess - no possibility to design a plane that it uses gunpods when on CAP instead of the bombs, the Ju 88 DB doesn't make sense as a FB. It's armement is to weak.

But the NF would really be interesting. Or look at the Myrth NF: What would you prefer?
a) No CAP over your ships or
b) Myrth flying CAP over your ships?

What is a Myrth? [Sounds like a Mothra in the Godzilla world]

C6N1-S Myrt - really difficult to find out that "myrth" might mean "myrt" no?

I think you should look at Ki-83, Ki-84, Ki-100, Ki-64, Ki-102, just to name the JAAF products. I regard the Ki-84 as a superior escort fighter and also an effective fighter bomber (because it is classified as a fighter it does all missions well). I think the Ki-44 III is nearly fantastic. And we have not begun to talk about Navy fighters. Lots of choices. Depends on the mission which is best. Lots of choices: you want carrier fighters: the Ki-44 III is one, the A7M is one. Land based you have George and Jack - and the J7W eventually - a fantastic figher.

I'm talking about LR-escort, not about a good interceptor.

But it seems to me you don't want to understand, so I end this here...

[el cid again]

Not counting night fighers, which don't function as day fighters as you pointed out, RHS offers 24 types of fighter aircraft in the EOS family, and 23 in the CVO/BBO families (which have one additional night fighter type Ki-45c replacing Ki-45 II, and five other types which changed - A6M3, A6M8, Ki-61 I and Ki-61 II, Ki-100).

These are divided into four categories of fighter aircraft:

float fighters
carrier capable fighters
fighter bombers
land based fighters

Their suitability for use in escort depends on the situation. But clearly the "range" of a float fighter or a carrier fighter is not as critical as for a land based aircraft: they can move with - or in parallel with - a naval task force to provide fighter cover. Wether or not a particular fighter is effective is a function of several factors, including numbers - which the closer force has an inherant advantage in - and the type of attacking aircraft. Naval units are often engaged by bombers unescorted, or by bombers with minimal escorts, or by bombers with long range fighters which are not as effective due to number of engines, etc. If you are not considering using all these aircraft in appropriate circumstaces at appropriate times, you may feel a lack of capability. But this set offers an impressive capability if properly managed and used. In particular, we have paid attention to the ship escorting requirement by insuring that there are fine carrier based interceptors in the set: Me-109 early and Ki-44 III later. We also have ultra long range single engine land based fighters in the form of the Ki-43 II and Ki-84 - both of which have more range than the A6M2. There is nothing wrong with the statistics for either.

I do not see what aircraft we could get rid of in favor of what other aircraft to build a "better" set of options. We are in danger of not modeling well - having got rid of Ki-61 I, Ki-61 II, Ki-45c night fighters, A6M3 and A6M8 to build this set for EOS. Whatever else may be said, range for naval cover is not a big problem with this plane set: seaplane fighters and carrier fighters can fly where ever ships may sail - and long range land based fighter cover actually increases in range and fighter performance from the fine A6M2 starting level. Neither Ki-43 II nor Ki-84 are poor aircraft - both have more maneuverability and durability than the A6M2 as well as more range. The Ki-43 II uses the US preferred .50 cal weapon option, while the Ki-84 uses the late war preferred by everybody 20mm weapon option. Similarly, the Ki-44 III - which in EOS family is permitted in naval service - has better maneuverability and durability than a Zero and also an all 20 mm weapon option. What is missing here? What could do any mission better? What could we give up to get it? Nothing I can think of.

I encourage you to look at float fighters in particular. Japan regarded these as a "secret weapon" - and indeed did a better job of developing the type than the Allies did. [Compare a very late appearing Wildcatfish with the Rufe - and remember that Rufe is replaced by a still better Rex] These aircraft exist in numbers in the Japanese mix - and would and should and must in any case - because the Japanese believed in them. Their operational value eventually was limited because of great strides made in non-float fighter performance - and because the Rex was not as early as intended - which had it been might have made some strategic difference. But even so, these aircraft are significant for ship escort both early and in remote places where determined high performance opposition is unlikely. To that, add another function: they provide good protection re low level attack - wether torpedo or not this is very dangerous vs ships and either attriting the attackers or deterring them entirely is worth doing. I think float fighters belong in the mix over any major task force no matter how many fighters are available - in the low altitude regime. Even if no other fighters are available, float fighter cover is far better than no fighter cover. The effect is not just in terms of actual damage and losses to attacking aircraft: any opposition at all reduces the chance of weapon hits on the target ships.

I also encourage you to be realistic about carrier air power in the Pacific: Japan isn't going to be nearly as effective later in the war due to the sheer numbers of USN and RN carriers which appear by then. It is far wiser to use the carriers - and in particular the smaller carriers and seaplane carriers and other seaplane carrying ships - to provide fighter and ASW protection for shipping than to engage in dramatic carrier battles. The Japanese cannot win a battle of attrition of carriers later in the war - and to try is folly. Japan needs to depend on its land based air - and submarines - occasionally supplimented by a fleet carrier operation - in combination with early reduction of the numbers of enemy carriers - to keep the airpower at sea situation tolerable. This is hard to do - but it is far more feasible than thinking in terms of "the Kiddo Butai will be my focus" in later stages of the war. If you think this way, you will find you may have significant sea based fighters for ship protection missions. Indeed, these do NOT require the highest of performance - and are going to be more effective than raw data suggests - because they are closer to the engagement and will be present in better proportions (numbers) for any given commitment than long range enemy aircraft can be. It is not super high performance that matters as much as adequate performance and appropriate operational commitment.

Finally, allow me to suggest that over time the Allied aircraft DID get better - both in relative and in absolute terms. We are in danger of not simulating this well already. We have focused on getting better Japanese performance than they really fielded to the point that the Allied problem is significantly more difficult. We should be approaching the point where we stop doing more of that - both because there is no need - and because beyond that point it is not simulating even remote possibilities. It was not and is not my intention to so distort the plane set that the relative and absolute improvement in Allied aircraft performance is not present or is not meaningful.

[DuckofTindalos]

I personally think that the Allies were correct in not spending many resources on floatplane fighters; they had no niche in their strategic plans, while the Japanese had a solid need for them as garrison fighters for far-flung Pacific island bases.

But speaking of them, I'd have liked to see how the Rufe would have measured up against the Floatfire. I suspect that the Rufe would have had its clock cleaned thoroughly...

[el cid again]

It is hard to grasp thinking in the era before there were any airfields in the Central and South Pacific. We had big plans for float/flying boat operations which didn't come to pass: the biggest building in the entire world, Boeing Renton, was built in 1942 to build such aircraft. It was something of a surprise when the Navy decided it preferred land based bombers instead - and the plant ended up building B-29s instead of PBBs. IRL the ability to build airfields fast was actually developed after the war began - and the game unfortunately makes it even faster than IRL. So we don't see as much use for these planes - except perhaps in BBO set - which has fewer engineers as well as more waterplanes on both sides.

[Historiker]

Why I see a lack of escort fighter is quite simple:
In CHS, and I guess also in stock, (nearly?) all allied DB and TBs have their range limited to 5 hex.
So far away from enemy airfields, only LBs and CVs are a danger from the air.

In RHS however, I see planes like the Vengeance that carry 1000lbs bombs over 12 hex. How can landbase fighters with a range from 4-6 hex protect ships from this bombers then? Do you have enough carriers to escort every single ship against this threat?
The only practicable solution for this is the use of landbased fighters, when the ships have to cross regions where longranged bombers can attack ships. As there is no usual fighter with a range of over 10, one needs to think about something else.
Every japanese commander would use the Myrt to fly CAP over own ships when this is the only plane that can do this job. But for this use, the Myrt needs to be a fighter, no nightfighter!
Moreover, it would be a quite common method to use the Ju 88 NF as destroyer against heavy bombers where it won't face enemy fighters. This was done in history and especially when the enemy doesn't attack at night - why not use NF under day then? This doesn't only make sense, it's historical correct, too.
This isn't "let's put a F-4 or a F-22 in"

Is this really that difficult to understand?

How can the Ki-84 protect ships against Vengeance and other LR-bombers, when it's range for LR-Cap is only 6?


Moreover:
The Wellington has an enormous range, while I read of not more than 2500km range. Are you sure it has such a long range?

[Elladan]

In RHS however, I see planes like the Vengeance that carry 1000lbs bombs over 12 hex. How can landbase fighters with a range from 4-6 hex protect ships from this bombers then? Do you have enough carriers to escort every single ship against this threat?

Simply keep within 4-6 hexes from your own bases fielding land-based fighters. You shouldn't have much problem with unescorted strikes. And with interior shipping lines it's actually quite easy.

[Dili]

That Vengeance seems an extraordinary plane...

[DuckofTindalos]

Yeah... It's certainly not the Vengeance in WitP...

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Why I see a lack of escort fighter is quite simple:
In CHS, and I guess also in stock, (nearly?) all allied DB and TBs have their range limited to 5 hex.
So far away from enemy airfields, only LBs and CVs are a danger from the air.

In RHS however, I see planes like the Vengeance that carry 1000lbs bombs over 12 hex. How can landbase fighters with a range from 4-6 hex protect ships from this bombers then? Do you have enough carriers to escort every single ship against this threat?

Well - it is quite true that before RHS, bombers had a very limited range. It is also true that the code restricted a bomber to 33% of range - when all of them could fly more than 40% of range with bombs. And RHS fixed that by tricking the code - so now a bomber has 42% of what should be its transfer range as its extended range (but code thinks it is 33%).
So it is very correct the problem is worse than it was before - in terms of ships being at risk.

To this add that code makes air search too effective. What protected ships IRL was that they were hard to find at sea. Even supercarriers in the Med have been able to evade air search - decades after WWII - when planes were longer legged and faster. RHS has addressed this problem as well: but PLAYERS must implement the solution. Never permit air search at a range greater than half the number of searching planes (that is, range limit the searches) - you may round up. Thus if you have 12 planes, you may search 6 hexes. To search 12 hexes requires 24 dedicated search planes. If you are not doing this - you will indeed be subject to many air attacks - more than would happen IRL.

As for "do we have enough carriers to protect every ship" the answer is "you better." Ships should not be sailing alone. Ships should take advantage of land based fighter cover, sea based fighter cover, or both - or you should not be sending them. Exception: a fast transport may sail without fighter cover if it can make the entire run both ways at night. IRL the Japanese did what you seem to want to do - send ships alone unescorted. This was a mistake - and players who send lots of ships without cover in range of the enemy diserve what they get. Long range fighters is not really going to change that: what figher has more practical range than 12 hexes? Yet you have two of these - both single engine and more effective than the 2 engine zorsters you advocate for - and still you are not happy. Before they come along, you have A6M2, with a range of 11 hexes. That is not bad - in all periods - early - middle and late. If you think the answer lies in long range escort fighters based on land - then use the 3 you already have (A6M2, Ki-43 II, Ki-83). The long range fighters on your side suffer the same problem they do on the enemy side: distance reduces the number which appear over the target area, and it increases operational losses (much worse for Japan). Japan should NOT send planes long range at every opportunity - and it SHOULD arrange for emergency pilot recovery along their route when it does - both of which are in our game (but not well understood) as code functions. AVOID long range missions as routine: doing this deliberately in numbers will only increase your air attrition rate and pilot losses. Adopt escort carriers and pseudo escort carriers whenever you can. And do not try to send ships everywhere - and never unescorted UNLESS there is no air threat.

Instead of rejecting the fighters of less range - use them when/where you can - and it puts less pressure on the long range fighter squadrons.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

The only practicable solution for this is the use of landbased fighters, when the ships have to cross regions where longranged bombers can attack ships. As there is no usual fighter with a range of over 10, one needs to think about something else.
Every japanese commander would use the Myrt to fly CAP over own ships when this is the only plane that can do this job. But for this use, the Myrt needs to be a fighter, no nightfighter!
Is this really that difficult to understand?

The Myrt was not designed to be a dayfighter - and probably would not work out in that role. Note, for example, that it has not a single weapon pointing forward! Nor one pointed rear - top rear - or bottom rear! Such an aircraft would be dead meat in air combat in daytime if enemy fighers of any sort showed up.

The Myrt was intended for carrier operations - in small numbers - and you get it in flights - not squadrons - at sea. By the time it was available carrier ops were over - so it really served on land. I let players have it in its designed role in case they have the luck and skill to still have a carrier force by the time it appears. But this aircraft is not going to work as a dayfighter - even as a zorsterer.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker


How can the Ki-84 protect ships against Vengeance and other LR-bombers, when it's range for LR-Cap is only 6?

I meant Ki-83. Ki-83 is like Ki-43 II - it has a range of 36 = normal range of 12. You always have land based fighters in the set with a range of 11 or 12 - so if this is a solution to a problem - it already exists.