Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/15/2017 1:36:25 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 10954
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

In the game, all 2Es are idle, because there is no interdiction missions for them, so you pound LCUs with them. It sucks, it is unrealistic, it is game-breaking etc. Wish 2Es could at least target those immune oil/resources or inflict friendly casualties when on CAS missions. More house-rules than clicks. Meh.


You need to be more imaginative. 2Es can do far more than bomb LCUs or not bomb LCUs. And nothing is "game breaking." Please.

2Es can attack Cities in all of those missions except mining. They can attack Ports. They can attack AFs and destroy supply. They can train pilots. They can be kamikazes.

You can HR anything you want, but slavish devotion to real life will break the balance of the game. Supplies and fuel move FAR too easily through jungle in the game. Aircraft repair is FAR too easy in the game ("Spare parts? Make them from rice balls.") Bases are taken in a destroyed state and are fully operational in a couple of days. Wounded men heal in a week. And on and on. Some aspects of the abstraction speed op tempo up, some aspects slow it down. It's a dance.

For the Allies at least, plane counts are fixed at historical numbers and that has to be factored into use. But 2Es can't be used in the CAS role to any great extent for reasons I've spoken to many times, and you mention. There are no bridges to bomb. There are no rail marshaling yards. There are weak anti-personnel weapons in the game. Bombing LCUs at whatever altitude your risk profile likes is an alternative. HR that away, and then yeah, 2Es get left on the ground more. And the balance shifts away from the design. You can do it, but be careful forcing the issue. You may not like the spin-offs.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 61
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/15/2017 1:55:13 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 14222
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
"Ingrid Bergman? Well, she's not quite tall enough to my liking. If she'd have been just an inch or two taller, I'd have taken her out. Well, I would have if her hair color was just a shade darker. I like 'em a shade darker. And she isn't quite smart enough either. As far as I know, she isn't interested in philately, botany or lepidoptery. If she was, she'd be far more interesting and I could converse with her better. So I'll exclude her from my list of possible dates since I have a house rule that my woman must be tall, darker-haired, and avid lepidopterists. Ingrid Bergman? Meh."




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 9/15/2017 2:02:45 PM >

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 62
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/15/2017 3:08:01 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 10954
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
You forgot the ear-wax problem.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 63
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/15/2017 3:16:40 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 14222
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
You anglin' to swab her ears?

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 64
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/15/2017 4:34:24 PM   
Zorch

 

Posts: 3092
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

"Ingrid Bergman? Well, she's not quite tall enough to my liking. If she'd have been just an inch or two taller, I'd have taken her out. Well, I would have if her hair color was just a shade darker. I like 'em a shade darker. And she isn't quite smart enough either. As far as I know, she isn't interested in philately, botany or lepidoptery. If she was, she'd be far more interesting and I could converse with her better. So I'll exclude her from my list of possible dates since I have a house rule that my woman must be tall, darker-haired, and avid lepidopterists. Ingrid Bergman? Meh."




My, my - just a little picky, are we?

You won't find many tall, dark, female stamp collecting biologists on this site.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 65
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/15/2017 4:38:52 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 10954
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
Swab has a special meaning to a sailor . . .

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 66
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/15/2017 5:11:39 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 14222
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
I probably don't want to know or need to know, as it might be a disservice to the memory of the wonderful Ingrid Bergman, but I ought to make it clear that I don't know the sailor meaning of "swab" (other than the piratey-movie connotation for mopping the deck).

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 67
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/15/2017 6:09:56 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 10954
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
You have to be read-in on the secret handshake first . . .

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 68
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/16/2017 4:19:39 AM   
reg113


Posts: 393
Joined: 3/21/2002
From: MS, USA
Status: offline
The first rule of Fight Club ...

_____________________________

"Life's a b***h, then you die."

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 69
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/16/2017 10:16:28 PM   
MakeeLearn

 

Posts: 1850
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline
A good vid.

"New Guinea Campaign: Allied Air Operations Lae-Salamaua"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOlAN51fJPs

Tells of B24's attacking artillery positions. Use of mortars firing smoke shells to mark dug in positions of Jap forces for bombing by heavies.

Lots of 2 engine bomber strafing action.

< Message edited by MakeeLearn -- 9/17/2017 12:27:26 PM >

(in reply to reg113)
Post #: 70
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/16/2017 10:27:43 PM   
MakeeLearn

 

Posts: 1850
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline
"Winged Artillery - 7th AAF B25 Group"
Gilbert and Marshall Islands

Shows building of the bases and combat missions.

Shows use of the 75mm B25s.

7 of the 9 planes hit by flak, yet all returned to base. Some crash-landed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGjGJHrQxy8

< Message edited by MakeeLearn -- 9/16/2017 10:32:32 PM >

(in reply to MakeeLearn)
Post #: 71
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/17/2017 9:05:24 AM   
Leandros


Posts: 932
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline

Nice shots. Tks for posting!

Fred

_____________________________

River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B018F2QMEW?*Version*=1&*entries*=0

(in reply to MakeeLearn)
Post #: 72
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/17/2017 3:04:52 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 2771
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

A good vid.

"New Guinea Campaign: Allied Air Operations Lae-Salamaua"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOlAN51fJPs

Tells of B24's attacking artillery positions. Use of mortars firing smoke shells to mark dug in positions of Jap forces for bombing by heavies.

Lots of 2 engine bomber strafing action.


No, he says B24s bombed "gun emplacements in Chinatown". Later, Chinatown is defined as the main supply depot in Salamua. They used visual cue of the depots to bomb the guns.

And yes, at around 13:45 he mentions mortars firing smoke rounds to direct heavies to Jap positions. That is CAS, thank you.

(in reply to MakeeLearn)
Post #: 73
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/17/2017 3:33:00 PM   
MakeeLearn

 

Posts: 1850
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline

quote:

Chinatown is defined as the main supply depot in Salamua

???

Chinatown is a suburb of Lae in the Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea


mentions art/guns twice

3:12 "artillery emplacements in Chinatown, also along the main supply trails lead to the front line".
heavies and mediums 3:51 "gun emplacements near the enemy front lines were blasted"

2 engine bombers can be seen strafing positions in the jungle. 13:19


< Message edited by MakeeLearn -- 9/17/2017 3:37:45 PM >

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 74
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/17/2017 3:51:48 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 2771
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: online
I was at a loss when I heard him say "Chinatown". Later in the film, the narrator says that Chinatown was the main supply depot in Lae for the Japanese. Make sense for the Japs to put gun batteries there, especially the heavy ones.

heavies and mediums 3:51 "gun emplacements near the enemy front lines were blasted" ---This one is dubious. He does not say who exactly blasted the guns near the front lines - 4Es or 2Es? The raid consisted of B-26s and B-24s. Seems like B24 were tasked with levelling Chinatown and trail interdiction.

The Lae part is somewhat vague. The mortar and smoke part seems legit CAS by 4Es.




< Message edited by Yaab -- 9/17/2017 3:52:19 PM >

(in reply to MakeeLearn)
Post #: 75
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/17/2017 6:06:31 PM   
Buckrock

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 3/16/2012
Status: offline
The 4Es (primarily B-24s) were used in the Pacific/SE Asia for direct battlefield support, even classic CAS missions on occasion. If you
haven't read it yet, I'd still recommend Chapter 7 of "Case studies in the development of close air support" for a summary analysis of the
use of CAS missions and their development during SW Pacific operations.

It even mentions on page 313 what sounds like the B-26/B-24 mission you were discussing from the Youtube video.

The book can be found in full here:-
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=_mIq1PP0nCEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Case+studies+in+the+development+of+close+air+support%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilr8y-56zWAhUMi7wKHZeID_sQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=%22Case%20studies%20in%20the%20development%20of%20close%20air%20support%22&f=false


_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 76
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/18/2017 4:31:33 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 2771
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: online
Thanks. One could roleplay this by flying CAS by those tiny 4Es HQ squadrons or flying A/B/C squadrons, so the bombers do not fly as the whole group in box formation.

(in reply to Buckrock)
Post #: 77
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/18/2017 6:12:14 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 2771
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab


quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

A good vid.

"New Guinea Campaign: Allied Air Operations Lae-Salamaua"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOlAN51fJPs

Tells of B24's attacking artillery positions. Use of mortars firing smoke shells to mark dug in positions of Jap forces for bombing by heavies.

Lots of 2 engine bomber strafing action.


No, he says B24s bombed "gun emplacements in Chinatown". Later, Chinatown is defined as the main supply depot in Salamua. They used visual cue of the depots to bomb the guns.

And yes, at around 13:45 he mentions mortars firing smoke rounds to direct heavies to Jap positions. That is CAS, thank you.



About the mortar smoke. That was a legit CAS mission by B-17. Yet, the B-17s pilots had to actually see the smoke over the jungle, and the narrator does not mention neither the approach and attack altitudes. Would that be 2000 feet? 3000 feet? Because I am leaning to let the 4Es attack the LCUs in combat hexes provided the 4Es will fly really low in 2000-4000 feet range and expose themselves to AA fire.

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 78
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/18/2017 9:42:44 AM   
Leandros


Posts: 932
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline
Just as a curiosity for this discussion - from General Eichelberger's book - 4-E CAS........:

"From my headquarters at Telegrafo I took off on February 19, after a morning of staff work, to watch one of the earliest of the landings. Capul is a small island in San Bernardino Strait and it was a small landing—but I wanted to witness it. From my B-17 I could see the PT boats shepherding the slow, wallowing landing craft in a choppy sea. Now they stood off a coastal village and the bombardment started. The enemy was quiescent until our LCMs began to move inshore. Then the defenders’ firing began.

Abruptly Chuck Downer, my pilot, asked me a question. I said, “Okay.” Down we plunged with all guns firing. We made three runs over the enemy positions at an altitude of two hundred feet, and at the end of our third run I noticed from the cockpit a shell burst directly below our left wing. It was a burst from a Jap .75, but I am glad to report that my first and only strafing mission, nevertheless, was without crew casualties. I was told later that our rather garish performance encouraged a hesitant wave of landing craft to a quick and successful beaching".

And:

"Next morning I was on the bridge at seven-fifteen to watch the naval shelling. We had chosen landing beaches several miles west of Zamboanga City in hope of preserving the docks there for our future use. The cruisers were firing six-inch guns, and the destroyers and the destroyer escorts and the rocket-firing LCIs were making life miserable ashore. Just before the first wave of infantrymen landed, two flights of B-24s dropped heavy bombs on the landing beaches. Thirteen minutes later our infantrymen hit the beach; Marine planes and three flights of A-20 planes made strafing flights ahead of them. It was a coordinated job by three arms of our forces and admirable to watch".


Eichelberger, General Robert L. Our Jungle Road To Tokyo [Illustrated Edition] (p. 195). Verdun Press.

Fred

< Message edited by Leandros -- 9/18/2017 9:53:43 AM >


_____________________________

River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B018F2QMEW?*Version*=1&*entries*=0

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 79
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/18/2017 10:33:32 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 2771
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: online
Thanks. The pre-landing attacks by B-24s, B-17s and 2ES are well documented. I am chasing those instances when the action went inland and 2ES/4ES were called for CAS after the landings. Keep them coming.

(in reply to Leandros)
Post #: 80
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/18/2017 3:02:22 PM   
Buckrock

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 3/16/2012
Status: offline
If you want further examples, I'd suggest you study the Borneo and the Central Philippine Campaigns of 1945 where B-24s were frequently tasked
with directly supporting the Allied offensives there due to the initial absence of operational forward airfields for the shorter-ranged Allied
aircraft to use. And these bombing missions were close, at times less than a mile from Allied troops who were waiting to advance once the aerial
bombardment ended. "The Story of the Fifth Bombardment Group (Heavy)" and Vol 5 of "The Army Air Forces in World War II" should give you a lot of
detail on these operations.

I'm not sure though how examples of B-24's bombing enemy units that are in contact with friendly units (effectively in the same AE hex) helps
support the House Rule you described earlier.

_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 81
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/18/2017 6:23:36 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 2771
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: online
If I can pinpoint the altitude of 4Es on CAS, then I can create a house-rule for such attacks . That's all.

(in reply to Buckrock)
Post #: 82
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/18/2017 7:50:41 PM   
MakeeLearn

 

Posts: 1850
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline
quote:

I was at a loss when I heard him say "Chinatown". Later in the film, the narrator says that Chinatown was the main supply depot in Lae for the Japanese. Make sense for the Japs to put gun batteries there, especially the heavy ones.



Ive discovered that there was a "Chinatown" at both Lae and Salamaua

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 83
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/18/2017 7:54:43 PM   
MakeeLearn

 

Posts: 1850
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline
"Case studies in the development of close air support"


downloadable pdf

https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/24/2001330067/-1/-1/0/AFD-100924-035.pdf

(in reply to MakeeLearn)
Post #: 84
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/19/2017 6:06:25 AM   
Buckrock

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 3/16/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

If I can pinpoint the altitude of 4Es on CAS, then I can create a house-rule for such attacks . That's all.

From what I'd seen in "Case studies" and other sources, it would vary from tactical bombardments at around 10,000 ft down to direct
support strikes from 4000ft (or at times even lower). All these were bombing runs made on enemy targets within sight of friendly ground
units, the attacks from medium altitude normally being in greater strength (squadron up to group) than those from low altitude (often only
1-4 aircraft). The lower the altitude, the closer the bombing target could be to friendly troops (in theory). Potential enemy AA clearly
would also influence the choice of altitude.

Low-altitude ground attacks by 4E's like the B-24 did not appear to be often used until late '44 onwards. A typical example of the (relatively)
more frequent medium-altitude ground support mission was on Dec 29 1943 when 54 B-24's made a bombing run from 10,000ft against Japanese
defensive positions around Razorback Hill (near Cape Gloucester) while lead units of the 1st Marine Division were only 2500yds away awaiting
the orders to advance. There were no friendly casualties from this bombing (or the low altitude B-25 strikes that went in immediately after
the B-24's) and the Marine attack that began two hours later had succeeded in driving the enemy out by the next day.

It may also be worth looking at what the Allies were doing with their 4E's in terms of ground support in the CBI since that region is also
relevent to AE.

_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 85
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/19/2017 6:45:57 AM   
Barb


Posts: 2178
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline
Each mission was tailored to fit the requirements and capabilities of the airplanes that were on hand for such a mission. So you would hardly find something like "SOP" for the ground support.
Altitudes varied depending on the target area, nature of the target, accuracy required, bomb load carried/fuses, expected outcome, etc.

You need different type of planes/formations/bombs on a dump/camp area, completely different when trying to silence enemy artillery battery, completely different when trying to suppress a pesky gun on the hillside, infantry in the caves, enemy entrenched on top of the hill, or even if you want to clear area of foliage!

Scheduled CAS:
Ground troops usually send a request a day before, with target data - and air force experts then looked at the planes at disposal, bomb load (size, cluster, daisy-cutters/fragmentations, napalm, depth charges, fuse settings), protection, communication, target marking, approaches, and all other stuff and informed the ground troops about what they came up with.

On call (or CAB-RANK system):
Air force sent planes in groups on scheduled times to relieve another flight with some secondary targets. Say 3xB-25D1 over the beachhead between 0900-1100, another flight following. When called on by radio they would target whatever ground troops requested - but usually carried a GP bombs, and added strafing. Or 4xP-40s every half an hour or so. When not called upon in their assigned time, they would target something more distant from the frontline.

Try to read detailed account on Operation Brewer (Admiralty Islands campaign) - it had everything - heavy bombers, mediums, fighter bombers and most of the missions would fall into CAS classification:
Chapter 11 - The Admiralties

_____________________________

[img]https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzOZPXg_qJ22TG43UmJ5UjRsb3c[/img]

(in reply to Buckrock)
Post #: 86
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/19/2017 8:00:25 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 2771
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buckrock


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

If I can pinpoint the altitude of 4Es on CAS, then I can create a house-rule for such attacks . That's all.

From what I'd seen in "Case studies" and other sources, it would vary from tactical bombardments at around 10,000 ft down to direct
support strikes from 4000ft (or at times even lower). All these were bombing runs made on enemy targets within sight of friendly ground
units, the attacks from medium altitude normally being in greater strength (squadron up to group) than those from low altitude (often only
1-4 aircraft). The lower the altitude, the closer the bombing target could be to friendly troops (in theory). Potential enemy AA clearly
would also influence the choice of altitude.

Low-altitude ground attacks by 4E's like the B-24 did not appear to be often used until late '44 onwards. A typical example of the (relatively)
more frequent medium-altitude ground support mission was on Dec 29 1943 when 54 B-24's made a bombing run from 10,000ft against Japanese
defensive positions around Razorback Hill (near Cape Gloucester) while lead units of the 1st Marine Division were only 2500yds away awaiting
the orders to advance. There were no friendly casualties from this bombing (or the low altitude B-25 strikes that went in immediately after
the B-24's) and the Marine attack that began two hours later had succeeded in driving the enemy out by the next day.

It may also be worth looking at what the Allies were doing with their 4E's in terms of ground support in the CBI since that region is also
relevent to AE.


Great info, but you just made my life HARDER. Basically, there is no way to simulate tactical bombing in combat hexes. If a 10,000 feet 2E or 4E attack targeted only field arty emplacements, support squads and units in Reserve mode, I would have no quarrel with en masse bombing of LCUs by 2Es and 4Es. Right now, all such 2E and 4E attacks behave like CAS, even though bombers fly in formation in great numbers (20-150 aircraft),and attack all kinds of devices in the hex.

My house-rule would be to fly 2Es (unglazed noses) and 4Es CAS in combat hexes only between 2,000 and 4,000 feet by 2E/4E squadrons broken into A/B/C to simulate smaller CAS attack formations. Still, the game code may make them arrive at the tagret as one box formation, but I cannot influence that. What do you think?

(in reply to Buckrock)
Post #: 87
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/19/2017 8:41:15 AM   
Buckrock

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 3/16/2012
Status: offline
Honestly I think the historical data is too variable to hard set your rules by. You'll just tie yourself in knots. I have no answer other than
perhaps instead trying to keep it real simple, such as player restricting the level bomber class missions so that only those with strafer noses
are allowed to make Ground Attacks, the non-strafer types of level bombers have to make do with just bombing bases, industry or ships. It's
not historical but it will at least limit the numbers available for pulverising enemy LCU's in Ground Attacks.

Good Luck.

_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 88
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/19/2017 10:09:18 AM   
Leandros


Posts: 932
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

Honestly I think the historical data is too variable to hard set your rules by. You'll just tie yourself in knots. I have no answer other than
perhaps instead trying to keep it real simple, such as player restricting the level bomber class missions so that only those with strafer noses
are allowed to make Ground Attacks, the non-strafer types of level bombers have to make do with just bombing bases, industry or ships. It's
not historical but it will at least limit the numbers available for pulverising enemy LCU's in Ground Attacks.

Good Luck.

I agree with you but it has been a useful exercise - thank you, Yaab! That said, I think the game takes good care of the
problem of CAS and low-level bombing. It can be quite costly, particularly if you have seen to arrange for some AAA. Each
and every player should be allowed to weigh the pros and cons for each occasion. My experience, or impression, is that the
results of low-level CAS is often uneconomical. Better to waste planes on anti-ship operations.

Fred


_____________________________

River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B018F2QMEW?*Version*=1&*entries*=0

(in reply to Buckrock)
Post #: 89
RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO - 9/21/2017 9:36:48 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 2771
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: online
The plot thickens.

Seems only A-20 Havoc was a genuine 2E CAS aircraft used by the US Army in the PTO. Unglazed B-25s flew tons of missions against airfields and ships, but were not performing CAS missions on masse. A-26 Invader was, per Wikipedia, a turd CAS-wise and arrived late in the war. 4 ES flying CAS missions in 2,000 - 4,000 feet range in the game use Gnd skill, the same skill they use in bombing from 30,000 feet, thus CAS missions cannot be easily simulated used WITP:AE engine without overpowering 4Es.

To keep it simple, as advised by Buckrock, 4Es and 2ES are excluded from Ground Attack missions from combat hexes. The only exception is A-20 Havoc in all its variants.

Gentlemen, it was great to read your comments and feedback in this thread. Many thanks!


(in reply to Leandros)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.309