Fighters attacked by LRCAP on Ground attack missions

[Cavalry Corp]

If one send fighters on ground attack ....One would expect them if attacked by LRCAP to ditch the bombs and fight like fighters

No the do not they get all shot down even with high exp !!
BUT fighters on sweep apparently engage the enemy fighters then attack the airfield seems my case one should also be the case

Just lost 72 Zero like this in China

Michael

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: cavalry

If one send fighters on ground attack ....One would expect them if attacked by LRCAP to ditch the bombs and fight like fighters

No the do not they get all shot down even with high exp !!
BUT fighters on sweep apparently engage the enemy fighters then attack the airfield seems my case one should also be the case

Just lost 72 Zero like this in China

Michael

that´s how it goes. The fighters just fly on straight ahead in perfect formation to get shot down one after another. Must have been an oversight IMO, there´s no realistic explanation why they should not ditch their bombs and try to fight the attackers. Bad design... [:(]

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: cavalry

If one send fighters on ground attack ....One would expect them if attacked by LRCAP to ditch the bombs and fight like fighters

No the do not they get all shot down even with high exp !!
BUT fighters on sweep apparently engage the enemy fighters then attack the airfield seems my case one should also be the case

Just lost 72 Zero like this in China

Michael

How big was the cap? What planes were you flying? What planes were in the cap?

IIRC on sweep fighters may strafe an airfield, but they don't attack with bombs.

[Cavalry Corp]

I had Zero and Tony about 120 all on ground attack - i lost abot 70
He had P40?
and P38 lightning ABOUT 50 I suppose

one lot was the AVG

He lost about 2


M

[Charbroiled]

Were any of these fighters on "escort"?

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: cavalry

I had Zero and Tony about 120 all on ground attack - i lost abot 70
He had P40?
and P38 lightning ABOUT 50 I suppose

one lot was the AVG

He lost about 2


M

So you had about 120 fighters on ground attack, presumably at low altitude. He had 50 fighters flying cap, you lost 70, he lost 2?

Hard to say what's going on. P-38s are death on Zeros and Tonys. But it sounds as though there weren't more than about 25 of them.

In RL, SOP would be for the commander to decide whether to drop the ordanance or not. That decision would be based on a lot of things, proximity to target, threat level, etc. If the units were seriously threatened its a good bet they would drop their bombs and fight, or run.

Personally what I would do is get another group of fighters together and sweep the target first

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

Were any of these fighters on "escort"?

This would also be SOP, as well as reconning and sweeping the target ahead of time.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

Were any of these fighters on "escort"?

This would also be SOP, as well as reconning and sweeping the target ahead of time.

The game doesn't model SOP or doctrine well (or at all!!!)...

[spence]

Even if they ditched the bombs and turned to fight the fighter(bombers) wouldn't be aerodynamically as clean as fighters not rigged for bombs and their performance as fighters would be degraded. Assuming the Allied fighters got the bounce and ripped the formation of fighter(bombers) to pieces on the first pass disorganization/lack of coordination amongst the survivors might well account for the disparity as initial "zoom and boomers" concentrated on isolated fragments of the original formation. The real lesson is "Don't base your plan on perceived enemy intentions, base it on enemy capabilities."

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

Were any of these fighters on "escort"?

This would also be SOP, as well as reconning and sweeping the target ahead of time.

The game doesn't model SOP or doctrine well (or at all!!!)...

I think the point here would be its up to the commander to plan his missions well. I don't know the details in this particular situation, but flying a massive attack into the teeth of the enemy cap without escort is not really a good idea.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: spence

Even if they ditched the bombs and turned to fight the fighter(bombers) wouldn't be aerodynamically as clean as fighters not rigged for bombs and their performance as fighters would be degraded. Assuming the Allied fighters got the bounce and ripped the formation of fighter(bombers) to pieces on the first pass disorganization/lack of coordination amongst the survivors might well account for the disparity as initial "zoom and boomers" concentrated on isolated fragments of the original formation. The real lesson is "Don't base your plan on perceived enemy intentions, base it on enemy capabilities."

but it would 100% not be the same in real life as it is in WITP when the fighter(bombers) just keep flying straight ahead in formation which results in e.g. 72 out of 72 shot down one after another without even trying to fight. Even if they (the attacker) would have the bounce, thinking that during that first bounce all the fighter (bombers) would be shot down is a bit too "wide thinking" for me.

If you see 20 fighters taking down 72 fighter(bombers) because the game treats them as bombers (without any defensive armament) then it is at least strange...

[Cavalry Corp]

I had no escorts ( MISTAKE ) and I did not know he was there they were LRCAP

M

[Miller]

I am suffering the same in my game. The simple solution is to make sure low exp pilots do the ground attack whilst high exp ones do the escorting.

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: spence

Even if they ditched the bombs and turned to fight the fighter(bombers) wouldn't be aerodynamically as clean as fighters not rigged for bombs and their performance as fighters would be degraded. Assuming the Allied fighters got the bounce and ripped the formation of fighter(bombers) to pieces on the first pass disorganization/lack of coordination amongst the survivors might well account for the disparity as initial "zoom and boomers" concentrated on isolated fragments of the original formation. The real lesson is "Don't base your plan on perceived enemy intentions, base it on enemy capabilities."

but it would 100% not be the same in real life as it is in WITP when the fighter(bombers) just keep flying straight ahead in formation which results in e.g. 72 out of 72 shot down one after another without even trying to fight. Even if they (the attacker) would have the bounce, thinking that during that first bounce all the fighter (bombers) would be shot down is a bit too "wide thinking" for me.

If you see 20 fighters taking down 72 fighter(bombers) because the game treats them as bombers (without any defensive armament) then it is at least strange...

But that is how the program was written. Anything that will attack the ground or ships is treated as a "bomber" and fights as one, regardless of what plane type the unit screen lists it as.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Miller

I am suffering the same in my game. The simple solution is to make sure low exp pilots do the ground attack whilst high exp ones do the escorting.

Although Cavalry's results do seem very extreme, I think Miller's solution will help a lot. In one of my PBEMs my opponent has been bombing me silly in China and some other areas despite P-38s flow by very good pilots. He successfully protects his bobmers by sending in a very strong escort, about twice as many planes as I have on CAP. My fighters win the battle with his fighters usually, but fail to score many kills with his bombers. I suspect one day he will run out of good fighter pilots but it seems to have worked so far.

[RUPD3658]

I had a bunch of low exp Tonys bounce some high exp P-38s that were on a port attack. The Tonys ripped through the P-38s with minimal losses.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: spence

Even if they ditched the bombs and turned to fight the fighter(bombers) wouldn't be aerodynamically as clean as fighters not rigged for bombs and their performance as fighters would be degraded. Assuming the Allied fighters got the bounce and ripped the formation of fighter(bombers) to pieces on the first pass disorganization/lack of coordination amongst the survivors might well account for the disparity as initial "zoom and boomers" concentrated on isolated fragments of the original formation. The real lesson is "Don't base your plan on perceived enemy intentions, base it on enemy capabilities."

but it would 100% not be the same in real life as it is in WITP when the fighter(bombers) just keep flying straight ahead in formation which results in e.g. 72 out of 72 shot down one after another without even trying to fight. Even if they (the attacker) would have the bounce, thinking that during that first bounce all the fighter (bombers) would be shot down is a bit too "wide thinking" for me.

If you see 20 fighters taking down 72 fighter(bombers) because the game treats them as bombers (without any defensive armament) then it is at least strange...

But that is how the program was written. Anything that will attack the ground or ships is treated as a "bomber" and fights as one, regardless of what plane type the unit screen lists it as.

I know! [:D] It still makes no sense to me... hopefully it doesn´t make sense to you either... [;)]

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: castor troy





but it would 100% not be the same in real life as it is in WITP when the fighter(bombers) just keep flying straight ahead in formation which results in e.g. 72 out of 72 shot down one after another without even trying to fight. Even if they (the attacker) would have the bounce, thinking that during that first bounce all the fighter (bombers) would be shot down is a bit too "wide thinking" for me.

If you see 20 fighters taking down 72 fighter(bombers) because the game treats them as bombers (without any defensive armament) then it is at least strange...

But that is how the program was written. Anything that will attack the ground or ships is treated as a "bomber" and fights as one, regardless of what plane type the unit screen lists it as.

I know! [:D] It still makes no sense to me... hopefully it doesn´t make sense to you either... [;)]

Hi, we've obviously never met before. I'm Dtravel, one of the snarky, smartass, PITA to the developer posters who continuely flames them. You are?

[:'(]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: dtravel



But that is how the program was written. Anything that will attack the ground or ships is treated as a "bomber" and fights as one, regardless of what plane type the unit screen lists it as.

I know! [:D] It still makes no sense to me... hopefully it doesn´t make sense to you either... [;)]

Hi, we've obviously never met before. I'm Dtravel, one of the snarky, smartass, PITA to the developer posters who continuely flames them. You are?

[:'(]

I´m the one who was more than once asked if I´m a Ron S. alias! [8D]