AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

If I recall correctly, didn't the Japanese actually modify their Type 91 Torpedos so that they could use them at PH? I seem to remember something about them adding some type of fins to prevent them from diving as deep once released, cause that was the only way a torpedo was going to work in water as shallow as a port.

Yes - you are right on the money. Wooden fins that broke away in the water.

[TheElf]

El Cid, take it elsewhere. You are spamming an AE discussion thread after I clearly asked the debate to be moved elsewhere. You have hundreds of you own threads. This one belongs to the AE Air Team.

Start another one if you must.

Thank you.

[herwin]

It's more complicated than indicated. In port, many ship berths are protected, by the narrowness or shallowness of the channel or (later) by nets (baffles). At PH, only about half the BBs were even vulnerable to torpedo attack, and at Taranto, the RN used modified torpedos dropped from a very low altitude. See this paper. This and the attack on the Z Force should probably be treated as start-of-war surprise.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Which leads into this question:

With all these new stock additions, will there still be ample slots for the modders amoung us to add additional a/c for all sides?

Keeping in mind that the stock WITP didn't really give the Japanese side a lot of extra slots to work with, one has to be willing to give to gain...I'd like to avoid this if possible.

Several hundred slots are reserved for modders to toy with. None of these are hardcoded for a particular service.

[Dixie]

This is just a minor visual thing, but will No.s 605, 607 & 615 RAF be named No.6xy RAuxAF Sqn* instead? It's just 'chrome' really, but I have too much time on my hands right now [:D][:D]

* With numbers instead of xy, before someone points that out [:'(]

[witpqs]

Folks, a general questions on AE - I'm aware of the differences in the WITP manual between fighters and fighter-bombers (FB's get a bit better bombing ability (=accuracy?), but FB's also get a bit less air to air ability).

How, if at all, does AE treat fighters and fighter-bombers differently from each other?

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Folks, a general questions on AE - I'm aware of the differences in the WITP manual between fighters and fighter-bombers (FB's get a bit better bombing ability (=accuracy?), but FB's also get a bit less air to air ability).

How, if at all, does AE treat fighters and fighter-bombers differently from each other?

Any idea about this?

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

This is just a minor visual thing, but will No.s 605, 607 & 615 RAF be named No.6xy RAuxAF Sqn* instead? It's just 'chrome' really, but I have too much time on my hands right now [:D][:D]

* With numbers instead of xy, before someone points that out [:'(]

AFAIK, AAF sqds didn't use the RAuxAF designation during the war. I believe the RAuxAF didn't become "royal" until late '47.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Folks, a general questions on AE - I'm aware of the differences in the WITP manual between fighters and fighter-bombers (FB's get a bit better bombing ability (=accuracy?), but FB's also get a bit less air to air ability).

How, if at all, does AE treat fighters and fighter-bombers differently from each other?

Any idea about this?

Same as stock, I'm afraid.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: timtom

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Folks, a general questions on AE - I'm aware of the differences in the WITP manual between fighters and fighter-bombers (FB's get a bit better bombing ability (=accuracy?), but FB's also get a bit less air to air ability).

How, if at all, does AE treat fighters and fighter-bombers differently from each other?

Any idea about this?

Same as stock, I'm afraid.

This is not exactly true. Fighter bombers are identical to Fighters except when they are performing the FB mission. When ordered to Attack AFs, ground units, etc. and if attacked they will check for jettisoning ordnance and engage the CAP at a temporary and slight defensive disadvantage.

Not ALL FBs will automatically jett their load and defend, only those flights that are attacked. So, not escorting your FBs will chance mission failure if there is no barrier (escort) between them and the CAP.

[herwin]

A relevant point is that modern USN light strike missions are usually unescorted--the aircraft can defend themselves effectively even though they're classified as light bombers. Their pilots are fighter-trained. I'm fairly sure this self-defence capability goes back to the early days of carrier aviation in the USN. Does the air-to-air model take this into account?

[Mike Solli]

Will AE give night fighters a night CAP ability?  Currently I can get around that by putting them on night naval attack with 90% CAP.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

This is not exactly true. Fighter bombers are identical to Fighters except when they are performing the FB mission. When ordered to Attack AFs, ground units, etc. and if attacked they will check for jettisoning ordnance and engage the CAP at a temporary and slight defensive disadvantage.

Not ALL FBs will automatically jett their load and defend, only those flights that are attacked. So, not escorting your FBs will chance mission failure if there is no barrier (escort) between them and the CAP.

Thanks for the response! I'm surprised by part of your answer, so I just want to confirm - no air to air penalty when an FB is acting strictly as a fighter (meaning CAP or Escort)? Thanks in advance.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: TheElf

This is not exactly true. Fighter bombers are identical to Fighters except when they are performing the FB mission. When ordered to Attack AFs, ground units, etc. and if attacked they will check for jettisoning ordnance and engage the CAP at a temporary and slight defensive disadvantage.

Not ALL FBs will automatically jett their load and defend, only those flights that are attacked. So, not escorting your FBs will chance mission failure if there is no barrier (escort) between them and the CAP.

Thanks for the response! I'm surprised by part of your answer, so I just want to confirm - no air to air penalty when an FB is acting strictly as a fighter (meaning CAP or Escort)? Thanks in advance.

There shouldn't be any.

[mdiehl]

The relevant point is that modern USN light strike missions are usually unescorted--the aircraft can defend themselves effectively even though they're classified as light bombers.

That was also the case for USN and USAAF f/bs in WW2. Indeed, the whole distinction between a fighter and a fighter-bomber is one that WitP uses to differentiate between missions. During WW2 there was no distinction between "fighters" and "fighter bombers" -- at least not in the USN and USAAF. All fighters had a ground attack capability with hard points for bombs or other ordnance. All fighter pilots were trained intensively in air to air combat and also somewhat in ground attack. As power plants improved, the ordnance load-outs of Allied fighters increased, giving them a much more robust ground attack capability, and leading to more diverse mission capability for allied fighter types.

There shouldn't be any.

Exactly so.

[jcjordan]

Not sure if it's been asked or not but probably has(didn't find in quick search) but will Op losses be increased? The book I'm reading talks of just how high the op losses were for missions sometimes due to the various causes. One mission, forget if it was Coral Sea, Midway or Kwajalein raid talked of a dozen or more lost a/c to op losses of pilots getting lost, mech breakdowns, etc out of only a few dozen a/c in the raid so that'd be almost 10-20% just in op losses not to combat reasons.

[pad152]

Will we see more failed to find air attacks against naval targets? You almost never see this in Witp. Even today it's not easy to find a single ship at sea.

[Feinder]

Will we see more failed to find air attacks against naval targets? You almost never see this in Witp. Even today it's not easy to find a single ship at sea.

 
I'll second this.  From my resources, there were many days were
 
TF58 (staggerinly huge as it was) spots enemy search aircraft on radar.
CAP vectored to intercept.
CAP was unable to intercept.
Didn't matter anyway, because enemy search aircraft continues meandering away, and never spots the litterally hundreds of ships.

All within 60 miles (1 hex in WitP) of the coast.

Rest assured that would NEVER happen in WitP.
 
-F-

[Grotius]

Agreed, it should be more difficult to find a ship at sea. The sea is very, very big.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: TheElf

This is not exactly true. Fighter bombers are identical to Fighters except when they are performing the FB mission. When ordered to Attack AFs, ground units, etc. and if attacked they will check for jettisoning ordnance and engage the CAP at a temporary and slight defensive disadvantage.

Not ALL FBs will automatically jett their load and defend, only those flights that are attacked. So, not escorting your FBs will chance mission failure if there is no barrier (escort) between them and the CAP.

Thanks for the response! I'm surprised by part of your answer, so I just want to confirm - no air to air penalty when an FB is acting strictly as a fighter (meaning CAP or Escort)? Thanks in advance.

There shouldn't be any.

When acting strictly as a fighter, there are no FB penalties. Even as a FB the MVR penalty is not necessarily a given. Depends on the situation.