Author Topic: Another winning frame for the AXIS side  (Read 3090 times)

Offline Anaxogoras

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7072
Re: Another winning frame for the AXIS side
« Reply #45 on: February 22, 2009, 08:11:50 PM »
All good comments directly above from SAX, AG, DOGG and Fencer.  All I'm saying here is that the ALLIED side has taken a hard licking on 2 out 3 frames and I don't believe the plans or the pilots can be blamed.  And dumb luck can only go so far.  Heck look at the AC kill ratios AXIS to ALLIED.

Did you see how outnumbered you guys were in terms of fighters, both frames? :eek:
gavagai
334th FS


RPS for Aces High!

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: Another winning frame for the AXIS side
« Reply #46 on: February 22, 2009, 11:54:31 PM »
I'll take my CM hat off for a second, and speak as the Frame 2 Axis CIC.  I've seen multiple threads on this board talking about the plane set and balance issues.  First, AKDogg nails the fuel issue.  The LA-7 can easily cruise over 300 mph while sipping fuel.  Climb hard to altitude, level off and pull the power back.  Another thing is that sometimes the bombers need to pull some power as well so they don't out range the escorts.  Bombers carry a ton of gas and can run full throttle for hours.  I'd recommend not doing that so the fighters can save fuel for when they're fighting.  The distances involved in this setup are not extreme--at 240 mph GS, you're covering 4 miles a minute, and can fly 100 miles (4 sectors) in 25 minutes.  Keep this in mind for the future.

I think the community as a whole would frown on cookie cutter approaches to CIC orders, but a couple of things I'll mention with respect to how I approach the offensive planning process. 

1)  Delivering ordnance without local air superiority, or at least heavily contested air superiority is a sure way to lose a lot of bombers/attack aircraft.  Bombers need to be unmolested while in the sight, and dive bombers need to be able to tip in without anyone behind them.

2)  Assigning the proper mix of aircraft is crucial.  Taking a page from Rommel's Attacks!, better IMO to have a smaller number of bombers escorted by a larger number of fighters.  For example, 6 formations escorted by 12 fighters is better than 12 formations escorted by 6 fighters.  Figure out what the minimum number of aircraft that are required to credibly destroy the objective, add a safety margin, and don't assign any more bombers to the target.

3)  Assigning the proper number of pilots per objective is also important.  I generally go with a 1/3-1/2 on defense, and 2/3-1/2 on offense, depending on the types of targets, aircraft mix, and squads assigned.  I'll assign a veteran squad that I know can handle themselves a tougher mission so I can plus up another objective that I believe needs it, especially on defense.

4)  This will be contested by some, but again, IMO, fuel is more important than bombs on fighter aircraft.  Use medium/heavy bombers to do what they were designed to do, and keep the fighters for escort and air superiority.  The bombers are much better for heavy lifting, and when formations are enabled, allow you to achieve some economy of force by getting three aircraft for one pilot.  That frees up more pilots for escorts and defense.  Just don't expect bombers to work miracles if not or poorly escorted.

If I was the Allied CIC, I'd have created 5 offensive B-25 missions with approximately 6-8 formations per target, with 10-15 Yak/La escorts per mission.  That would leave about half of the Allied side for defensive CAP missions.

My $.02

 :salute
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech