Matrix Games Forums

This thread is a request for comments on a concept. It is not decided to adopt this organization at this point in time. It could be done - at some work - if it was popular. It probably is better simulation - but also it definitely is more work ti impliment.

Considering automating a purely mechanical land air sea game in the same theater - but in the present age -
I was reminded of the idea of using elements instead of individual aircraft as a mechanism to both handle large
numbers of machines and also - it seems to me - to better model air combat per se.

First - theory: an element is the smallest formation of aircraft - a sub unit of a squadron - indeed a sub unit of a flight
which is itself a sub unit of a squadron. If a squadron is an air battalion, a flight is an air company, and an element is an
air platoon.

Second - history: in the beginning - that is in WWI - when numbers of aircraft began to participate in air combat - it
was found useful to fly in formations. In general, a small formation could follow its leader - and this had beneficial effects
on things like bombing raids: three bombers in a V formation with the leader in the center would have 3 times the chance
of actually hitting the target with one stick - and that combined chance had the "die roll" cast by the most experienced
pilot (or later bombradier) - that of the lead aircraft. [Japan used a rare exception to that at PH - five Kates were used when
loaded with 800 kg bombs - and this so increased the chance of a hit that the entire element had an 85 per cent chance of a
hit on a stationary target the size of a battleship] This basic formation - the flight of three - remained standard until after WWII for bombers - see the Handbook on the USAAF. US bomber squadrons generally had 12 aircraft - these would form up in flights of six - each in turn
composed of two elements of three. A group of squadrons would form "combat boxes" of 18 planes - a lead flight - and port and starboard flights slightly above and below the lead flight - several of these boxes then streaming in a line over the target. Each position in the box was carefully placed to cause each bomber to have a different bomb path - and also to help cover all possible fighter approaches with defensive fire. It was believed that this system optimized the chance of hitting a target area - each box dropped 18 sticks of bombs on different parallel lines - and then each following box hit the same area again with slight variations due to wind and navigation. At first groups had two boxes = 36 planes - eventually some had three = 54 planes. It is in these formations which standard hit probability measurements were made.

Third, fighters developed a variation on this organization early in WWII. While fighters also organized in flights of three from WWI through the beginning of WWII - eventually it was determined that it was hard for both wing men to stay with the leader during air combat maneuvering. Also - that one diligent wingman could protect his leader about as well as two could do. So air forces went over to an element of two - and it did not take long to evolve from that the loose duce - two flights of two - which when combined with certain tactics resuletd in a very flexable and effective organization in use until the present era (when, probably, fighters probably will go to independent flying - to minimize the radar cross section - and because each can "know" what the other "sees" by data links).

OK - so how does this work in simulated air combat?

Instead of getting individual aircraft - you get elements. Early fighters will be in flights of three. Later ones in flights of two. Bombers and most transports come in flights of three. Recon and patrol planes come in flights of one. Each flight gets the total number of engines and weapons of the flight. They also get a somewhat different durability rating: since we use K=2 right now - we would use K=number of planes per element.

This would generally decrease the number of "aircraft" being managed at any given time - more or less by a factor of about 2.5 (somewhere between 2 and 3). Early fighters would have elements = 3, later ones elements = 2, and bombers, transports, ect elements = 3, while recon and patrol planes elements = 1.

An effect of this system is that it will show the relative advantages of using the more flexable organization - and there is a period during which Japan has retained the flight of 3 while the Allies have gone over to the flight of 2. Elements have more punch - but also more durability - than single planes do. Maneuverability and ROC would not change at all.

The reason this is a better system is that planes actually try to maneuver in elements - not as individuals. Actually - in large air combats - things often (or even usually) break down to greater or lesser degree - but for small combats - it is more correct. A side effect is that our model breaks down when there are more than 50 planes on a side (a code issue NOT being fixes as far as I know). It would mean we hit the "less valid" effects of code only with higher numbers of planes on each side.

Don't forget, that the 262 ended up flying in a Kette, as the finger four wasn't a good set up for the early jet

and as far as the JP are concerned, I am not sure that anything that they did, should count for anything, as they pretty much broke every rule of air to air combat that the western forces seen as needed, so it is not really good to try and compare the two

Well - we DO compare them in our air combat model right now. Wether we want to or not there is no option about doing so - to get combat results we compare. Right now it is a one on one model. I think it may be better to use the element on element model. It is - however - true that the Japanese vic wasn't like the Western one - or at least it wasn't by WWII - it probably started out as an exact copy. The Japanese flew loose when patrolling - so it almost as as good as a loose duce. But in air combat - it was normal to try to have the vic stay together - and if it did not - it was because someone was not able to keep up. It is at least believed that the binary organization was better - and indeed the Japanese did adopt it because they came to believe it too. I think we can show this by using different element sizes for different plane types - as you upgrade both sides convert from the vic to the duce.

There are limits about what we can do - but this is a case where something not intended in the design might be better done. RHS is loaded with such innovations - not all of which worked (and were removed) - some of which worked brilliantly (and remain) and some of which we have not figured out if they work well or not (so we are testing to find out)? This may make the air model more correct in a relative sense - and that is always a good idea - assuming it works.

How does this interact with the basic element of the air planning order being the sortie?

De facto we are redefining "aircraft" as "aircraft element".

There are impacts, notably on production rates and costs (the latter for Japan) and on pilots, and on carrier (not ship) aircraft capacity.

Right now we really only have command pilots for all planes that have more than one pilot - never mind planes that carry relief flight deck crewmembers. We should reduce pilot pools by the proportion to compensate for that (never thought of that before). This system would require a greater adjustment to pools - and we would call the pilots by the new name "command pilots" = element leaders.

Production would have to be reduced in proportion to element size - we would tie element size to plane model - and also to date (when it changes for fighters in a given country - any model after that gets the new element size - e.g. two vice three). Japanese engines would remain as is, but plants would get smaller - and airframe cost would go down for all but the single plane element recon types.

Air combat should be more relatively correct - and it would become harder to exceed the 50 plane per side limit where the air combat model becomes invalid as a bonus. Air unit management should be slightly easier - to the extent that fewer things to manage is easier to manage.

The biggest problem I forsee would be carrier capacity. It would have to be defined in element terms - and that does mean we would have the option of larger big deck carrier capacity now - but such carriers would have a problem if the aircraft assigned updated to a type with a different element size. Bombers never change - nor recon planes - so it is a fighter only issue. But it would require either keeping the older fighters or accepting a reduction in total deck load capacity. Since players always try to play with "too many planes" - this might result in more realistic play - but it might be a problem for some. Since carriers suffer from the air group resize code issue already - this means air groups almost never resize to historically correct values (although RHS has two workarounds - some air groups "resize" to the same size and some land based carrier planes are carrier qualified to use as substitute units with the correct squadron sizes) - clearly players can live with slightly off air groups. Since we can define capacity as about 115% of actual - it might be possible to find reasonable values that work even after a channge from 3 to 2 element size for fighters. Early air groups can be assigned perfect air groups - later ones tend to have more fighters in relative terms anyway - at the cost of bombers - and if you permit resizing (I do not) - we might be able to get in a range as close as the current code does now.

Since recon planes remain one aircraft per element, ship capacity for non carriers would not change.

There is a good deal of data entry involved with this change - so it needs to be considered worth the effort in terms of a better model before we decide to implement it.

Bombers never change - nor recon planes - so it is a fighter only issue. But it would require either keeping the older fighters or accepting a reduction in total deck load capacity.

Not quite sure what to make of that statement. If it means that the bombers themselves are the same size throughout the war, didn't the British play with replacing Swordfish and Albacores with Avengers. If it means that the squadron sizes don not change, I can't agree. The US CV loadout changed significantly when they finally got the air-dropped torpedoes working properly, and the greater bombload of the Avengers became crucial for pre-invasion bombing.

I mean that a bomber element is always three planes - no matter the date or model - so it does not change over time. It is true - plane size goes up - so a reduced number of planes on a carrier later in the war is actually right - and that means this "problem" is pretty moot. I forgot that air group size should shrink - and so this is less an issue than I was thinking it might be.