Squadron Mission Assignments

[TheBug]

Well I finished my table on squadron missions over the last 6 frames and definitely feel there needs to be a greater effort for CiCs to spread around the mission assignment types.  You can take a look at the table on AHwiki here:

 http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/FSO_Squadron_missions

I will try and keep it updated as best as I can.  If anybody notices a discrepancy please feel free to correct it.

Over the last 6 frames there has been 7 Squads that have not flown one bomber mission.

325th Checkertails, 412th Braunco Mustangs, JG-2, 357th Death Dragons, 327th Steel Talons, Mighty 316th, VMF-251.

And an additional 15 that have only flown one bomber mission.

353rd FG, The Damned, USMC/71 Sqn, VF-6, 13 MPG, 367th Dynamite Gang, 5th Airforce, 9GIAP, Army of Muppets, Claim Jumpers, Hellcat Fighter Group, JV44 Butcher Birds, Nightmares VMF-101, Rolling Thunder, The Unforgiven.

That is out of a total of 40 squads that at least flew last frame. It's over half!

My squad has flown 3 bomber mission out of the last 6 and would have been 4( two in a row) if I didn't complain 3 frames ago. Would really like to see that get spread around a lot more than it currently is. <S>

[PFactorDave]

You chart doesn't show the two frames of GV that RT did... (or is that what the (v) means?)  One being the Great LVT Shoot...  We were the LVTs...     And last weeks Frame, RT flew B5Ns...  The suckiest of the sucky assignments.  You show us as fighter in frame 6...  I don't think you should count it that way if we were given a second life due to the less then the most desireable primary assignment.  RT has had second lives in 3 of the last 6 frames, that tells me that our primary assignments have been less then ideal 50% of the time.  The ONLY fighters RT has been tasked to fly in the 6 frames you list have ALL been as second lives after the T+60 mark.  Your chart doesn't show this.  In fact, it would at first glance, show something quite different.  Upping a fighter at T+60 isn't very ideal.  Most the time the action has already passed, and you spend the second half of the Frame just trying to catch tail end charlies.  It doesn't even remotely compare to flying a fighter sweep from the start of the frame, or even being primary fighter cover for a target.  Second life fighters shouldn't be equated to a primary fighter assignment.

Also it would be much better if your chart listed the frames by name, so it would be easier to know if it is up to date or a few frames behind.   I applaud your effort.  This is clearly a job that is taking some time and effort.   

[TheBug]

Yeah I put a (v) next to the fighter missions when a squad did GVs first, wasn't sure how to figure that.  Hopefully there won't be many frames with GVs, I have no interest in them. 

I show you guys as bombers in the last frame.  You will be able to tell it is up to date by the header/description above the table.  It states what frame 1 is ( Frame 2 of the Marianas) and then counts backward from there.  Was trying to keep it as easy as possible to update.

I'm open to any suggestions though. It's just meant as a tool to help the CiCs and I only pointed out the squads to illustrate a point.  I know they are only flying what was assigned by the CiC.

[Hamltnblue]

2 frames ago everyone on the Allied were fighters and shouldn't count.
other than that, all I can say is Thank You to the CiC's that tried to fit us as a fighter squad, which is what we are primarilly, and also responding to our direct e-mails and saying
Please when requesting Fighers.

[PFactorDave]

Yeah I put a (v) next to the fighter missions when a squad did GVs first, wasn't sure how to figure that.  Hopefully there won't be many frames with GVs, I have no interest in them. 

I show you guys as bombers in the last frame.  You will be able to tell it is up to date by the header/description above the table.  It states what frame 1 is ( Frame 2 of the Marianas) and then counts backward from there.  Was trying to keep it as easy as possible to update.

CC, I misread the chart as being Frame 6 is most recent.

I still think that the Primary mission should be the determining factor.  Second lives shouldn't be shown on the chart like you are showing them.  The Primary mission is the one where the CM has designed things so that you should see some combat.  The second life is simply a crap shoot.

[AKKuya]

Very excellent idea!     No intentions to be picky.  Thinking that the top of the table should be set up to accommodate the space necessary to put the names of the FSO's for the individual frames.  This would require more tables being implemented down the road.

[Saxman]

I think you should break fighter assignments down even further to mission profile (escort, sweep, defense).

Also keep in mind that sometimes the assignment you get in fighters isn't so fun, either. Quite a few times over the last three FSOs (especially the one preceeding Husky) my squad has been holding the stinky end of the stick. And the last frame of Husky we were ordered to fly an attack mission, BTW.

[PFactorDave]

I think you should break fighter assignments down even further to mission profile (escort, sweep, defense).

That might be tough to do.  It might be next to impossible to determine that level of detail from the logs.

[DrDea]

  I think if you break it down you will find that the groups planning these things are more often than not getting better rides. Personally I dont care to much what I fly,but if I did.I would offer to plan one of these.Keep in mind that while no FSO is bad,this one sure aint been the best and if you plan badly,your likely to hear about it

[Nefarious]

My squad enjoys flying fighters, That is why we request fighters every frame. The 412th appreciates the accommodations as well. Check our stats below in my Sig. We hardly fly bombers or attack, but when we do we participate like we do every Friday.

<S>

[FiLtH]

 Wow the last time I broke down who had been flying what, I got tore a new ahole.

If you feel like you are getting too much bomber time, make sure your CO is requesting fighters. If he is, keep tabs on it, and call people on it when you see something wrong. If a couple squads are always in fighters, and another squad who would like to fly fighters always seems to be pulling bombers, ask questions.


   

[Becinhu]

Not all CiC's favor their own squads. My one and only CiC I gave my squad at the time bombers.  I spent close to 6 hours making my set of orders. I relied heavily on squad size as to mission type.  It's kinda pointless to give a squad with less than 5 members a high priority assignment if it will take 10-15 planes to accomplish it. In that case you might have to allocate 2 squads to one role, which will stretch you quite thin.  If I have a single bomber group and I need them to get to target to have any chance of winning the frame then I feel the need to put a top fighter squad as cover or sweep over a squad that might have 5 FSO kills between 15 members.  Yes favoritism may occur but I doubt that it's as rampant as you think.
 

[TheBug]

The table is so I and any other CO, CiC or FSO player can keep tabs.  I am the squadron CO for FSO, I have never requested anything other than fighters and have gone so far to contact CiCs especially when our historical ride is present. I wish it worked that easily.

I will add Vehicle to the mission type to be fair.  And I will also list the specific frame names at the top of the columns.

Again this is a tool to be used by CiCs if they like.  It won't reflect that some people may actually request bombers, but it will give a general idea on a squadrons last few assignments.

[j500ss]

This is just me thinking in print here and nothing more. But it makes sense to me that small squads would not tend to get bomber duty. Why?  Well usually you need some numbers to take a target down, putting 2 or 3 small squads together to accomplish this, would tend to lead to the job maybe not getting done IMO.  Not saying they would not try, but a larger squad knows itself, their CO knows everyones abilities.

There is one target and one mission commander, they will work better as one. Several smaller squads together could lead to the proverbial "Too many chiefs, not enough indians"

My squad, we take what were are given, we do our share of bombing, some attack ( though I'd like to do more, but thats just me) and we get fighters, usually as CAP.

Anyways thats just my take, not saying its right or wrong. Just seems to be the common approach to me.

<S>


Looks like Becinhu beat  me to this one, sorry

[Ramon]

Did you request "Bomber" for any of those FSO's?  Has your squad CO been slow requesting ride type?  A quick review of your table shows you are the only one on there with 3 Bomber missions.  I can remember many USMC/71Sqdn Bomber missions and I can't say I regret any of them.  Some of our most memorable missions have been in Bombers.  How many FSO's has your squad been a participant in?  Is this a recent issue or an ongoing problem?  It does seem to even out over the years.  Sometimes you are lucky and then BOOM(as John Madden says)...reverse luck.