RAF 1944 -10% experience, why?

[Mike Rothery]

Why are RAF air units minus 10% experience in 1944? I don't recall any historical basis for it.

I haven't checked early war to se if the rating is better.

Any ideas?

[Wild Bill]

I think it is an OOB error. They intended for it to be +10% I am sure....WB


------------------
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games

[G. K. Zhukov]

RAF fighter pilots should qualify for a -10% experience penalty in 1941. After the terrible losses during the Battle of Britain and the huge expansion of their air armada the following year, the "Experten" from JG 2 and JG 26 enjoyed an "Indian summer" of victories over the green Brits. And 1941 was also the year that Bf 109F and Fw 190A made their appearance. Rough times indeed.

The +10% experience would perhaps have to apply from May 1943 on... Historically, that month was the first (since the Battle of Britain) in which the losses of Luftwaffe fighters in the West were greater that those of the Allied Air Forces... We could leave the +10% experience from 1944 on for the sake of simplicity, though.

[Lars Remmen]

I think all aircraft have the -10% to experience. So perhaps it is intentional and not an error...

---

No. Just did a quick check. US, UK, USSR and Germany in mid '41 and mid '44. UK and Germany have a -10% modifier regardless of year while US and USSR have a +/- 0% modifier, again regardless of year.

------------------
Lars
Nec Temere - Nec Timide

[This message has been edited by Lars Remmen (edited December 06, 2000).]

[victorhauser]

I'm not happy with the experience modifiers currently being applied to aircrew in SPWaW version4.4. The good news is that I can go into the OOB and change them to suit my vision of the "way it really was".

The question should not be one of air superiority since fighters vs. fighters are irrelevant to SPWaW. Instead, the question should be, "How skilled were the aircrews of a given nation, during a given period of the war, in hitting their targets and providing effective ground support on the battlefield when compared to the aircrews of other nations?"

If you take 1942-43 as the midpoint of the war and as an "average", then here is how I see "the way it was".

Germany 1939 = average
Germany 1940-43 = elite +10
Germany 1944+ = average
USA (and USMC) 1939-42 = average
USA (and USMC) 1943+ = elite +10
UK (and Commonwealth) 1939-42 = average
UK (and Commonwealth) 1943+ = elite +10
Japan 1939-42 = average
Japan 1943+ = poor -10
USSR 1939-42 = poor -10
USSR 1943+ = average
Other Axis Nations 1939-42 = average
Other Axis Nations 1943+ = poor -10
Other Allied Nations 1939-42 = poor -10
Other Allied Nations 1943+ = average

Training and tactical doctrine are more important than bravery and determination. What I mean is that all the bravery and determination in the world might get you to the target zone, but it won't help you hit the right target once you are there. Most smaller nations simply didn't have the training and tactical doctrine (much less the practical combat experience) to coordinate effectively with ground forces on the battlefield, regardless of how heroic their pilots might have been. Other nations, like Japan, had individually expert aircrew but no inclination or desire to use them in a coordinated ground-support role. Still other nations, like the USSR, had good aircraft and decent aircrew (by 1944 at least) but did not have good communications equipment or the means to coordinate with ground forces on the battlefield, thus minimizing their actual combat effectiveness.

Finally, you will note that, according to me, only the 3 most technologically advanced combatants of the war ever get elite +10 ratings (at various periods). This is because effective battlefield support also requires a high degree of technological sophistication to perform which the other combatants simply did not have.

So there you have my vision of "the way it was".



[This message has been edited by victorhauser (edited December 06, 2000).]

[Mike Rothery]

That looks pretty good to me....the Germans did put Luftwaffe liaison officers with the troops, particularly the Panzer Divisions. And Hans Rudel's stats were pretty impressive on the Russian Front.

[Bonzo]

Considering that Canada trained a large percentage of British & other allied air crews, I find and elite rating for the British and average for the others a bit odd. Canadian RCAF along with various exile forces (pole, Free French, etc) had the same equipment, training, motivation & morale as British units.

------------------
Robert (Bonzo) Lindsay, Coordinator
28th (North-west) Battalion Headquarters
http://dreadnaught.home.icq.com
nwbattalion@icqmail.com

[krull]

Well ok but your thing on Japan is wrong. early years japans pilots were eilite from years of practice in China. They could and did till the heell cat came out even vs spit fires and hurricanes fly complete circles around there enemys. Then in 1943 late 1943 losses and And they hell cat took its toll. As well as some P-38s in New Guinia.

[Mike Rothery]

Originally posted by Bonzo:
Considering that Canada trained a large percentage of British & other allied air crews, I find and elite rating for the British and average for the others a bit odd. Canadian RCAF along with various exile forces (pole, Free French, etc) had the same equipment, training, motivation & morale as British units.

I assumed Canada was covered by "UK and Commonwealth". As for the Poles, FF etc. Weren't they actually RAF units from 1940-45? eg. No.303 (Polish) Squadron RAF.

[victorhauser]

To Krull:
As I said before, air superiority is not the issue. I also said that the Japanese were expert combat pilots (in fact, I believe that the IJN aircrew may have been the most elite force of its kind in the world in 1941-42). But the issue is ground-support, not air combat. And the Japanese were simply not interested in ground-support. Perhaps it had something to do with Bushido and was not considered an honorable thing to do...

To Bonzo:
I did indeed mean for it to be implied and understood to include Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, etc. (and all other nations who flew with the RAF) under the "UK and Commonwealth" description. Note also that I am saying "flew with the RAF" and not "flew as part of the RAF".

[This message has been edited by victorhauser (edited December 06, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by victorhauser (edited December 06, 2000).]