Just a Tactical Observation

[Stoney]

I'll take my CM hat off for one second to make an observation in the context of a squad CO:

On offensive missions, if there are too few escorts to achieve air superiority over the objective, it doesn't really matter how many bombers or strikers are involved.  There will be a good chance that either the strikers will be wiped out or take extreme losses, and/or be ineffective against the target.

Here's an excerpt from my incomplete guide in the Wiki:

Air Superiority: Air superiority is the degree of dominance in the air battle that permits the operation of air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by the opposing force. Effective air superiority can permit an amount of enemy air activity as long as it does not impede upon friendly operations. Air superiority can be localized or widespread. While widespread air superiority may be a goal, remember that it is not mandatory for success, as long as you can create and sustain localized air superiority over an objective.

Typically in FSO when on the offensive, you attempt to create and sustain air superiority over an enemy target to permit a successful attack by bombers or other attack aircraft. When on the defensive, you attempt to maintain air superiority over an objective in order to deny the enemy the ability to attack. Air superiority is not numerical superiority. Having more aircraft over an objective does not mean that air superiority has been achieved. Air superiority is a term of action: 6 fighters effectively defending an objective against 20 enemy bombers have achieved air superiority.

It is imperative to note that almost every significant air operation in FSO requires air superiority in order to succeed.

I've stated this before in other posts, but taking a technique from Rommel's Attacks, use a smaller attack force supported by a larger escort force.  During WWI, Rommel, as a young Company Commander developed a technique where 1 squad was the assault force, with 2 or more squads used as a base of fire to support that 1 squad.  Before this period in the war, the standard German technique was the old "2 up, 1 back" rule, where a commander would attack with 2/3rds of his force, and leave the other third as the supporting unit.  With the increased amount of suppressive fire achieved by the larger supporting force, the smaller assault force was able to maneuver against the objective unimpeded.  Their lack of casualties during their movement to the objective meant that even though there were less of them numerically, they were still able to seize the objective.  Taking that idea further, its much better to assign 20 escorts to a force of 6 attackers than it is to have 6 escorts for 20 attackers.

Lastly, if you're designated as a mission commander, make sure you have everybody before you go into bad-guy territory.  Set a rendezvous point at which you will wait for all of your strikers and escorts to form up in one group, rather than use a rolling rendezvous point, hoping that those elements of your mission that are in the rear will be able to catch up to you.  Better to engage the enemy together than be engaged piecemeal.

[Saxman]

In the case of the orders last night I took a calculated gamble that the Axis would need to devote more pilots to strike the targets due to the ranges involved not allowing multiple attacks and the more limited strike capability of the Japanese plane set in comparison to the Allies' reducing the number of available defenders. From the reports I received it sounded like for the most part it paid off, as the only particularly stiff resistance met by the Allied strikes was at A25 and A11.

[ghostdancer]

Yep a force of 6 escorts and 20 attackers is hoping (praying for) three scenarios:

1) They run into only light resistance going to there target or at their target.

2) Or they deploy their escorts not as escorts but as scouts that allowed the attackers to skirt around and avoid the defenders entirely. Although with this tactic I find it better to have a stronger fighter force because they then can not only id the positions of the defenders but also attack them and pin them in place. Making if much easier for the attackers to skirt around / avoid them.

3) They that don't make contact at all with the enemy or if they do they make it say within minutes of their run on target.


As Saxman says, for each of these scenarios you are gambling and hoping you get lucky. Some times it works sometimes it doesn't. It most definitely is a calculated risk.

A more conservative approach that usually yields more consistent results is to provide adequate escorts. At least 1 to 1  .. instead of 6 escorts and 20 attackers say 13 escorts and 13 attackers. Or you can go with a rough 2 to 1 ratio .. 17 escorts to 9 attackers. This basically allows you to have enough escorts to engage the enemy (say 9 as a forward screen) and then have the attack force try to divert around the contact / battle and still have an effective escort (the remaining 8). Usually a force break down like this gives a much higher chance of those 8 attackers getting to target and getting their ordinance off. While a force ratio of 6 escorts and 20 attackers is hoping for one of the three scenarios above or if they do get engaged that 8 out of 20 attackers make it to target (the approach that you are building in numbers to cover expected losses).

This all said sometimes a calculate risk definitely works. It is just when it doesn't it goes really badly which is where the "calculated" part comes in. Each CiC has to determine what type of risk he is willing to tolerate and for what type of results.

Well said Stoney, a rendezous point and going in as a group is definitely desirable versus being spread out and defeated in detail.

[4deck]

Precision got their Arse Handed to em. Dont think anyone got a drop off.

[Viper61]

Stoney I agree 110 percent.  However there are often many factors that don't allow a CIC planner to execute how he would like.  I know I have run up against this many times myself.  I also would prefer to see a more 2/3 escort and 1/3 bomber force structures or even more weighted towards the escorts by 3/4's.  But often the FSO rules or the scenario special rules wont allow it.

In fact very often when I plan as a CIC I will not even send enough AC to distroy all of my assigned targets evenly.  I send in token packages 1 medium squad (adhering to the rules) but then I use these surplus AC at other locations to gain and hold air supremacy over the more high valued targets.  Or use a squad or two to hold a section of the map (air space) for other squads to move through (zone defense).  An example of this would be to send in a medium squad (7-10) only to hit a VH knowing full well that their chances of success are very low, while sending in 4 squads to completely distroy a Large Airfield or "special target" knowing that they will have a higher chance of success and "Net" the most points.

I am not complaining here as you and the rest of the CM team do a great job of herding the cats.  Here are my observations and comments / recommendations for consideration: 

Observations:

Maintaining the min / max AC numbers especially in how many bombers must up.  Often the CIC planner is forced into upping many more bombers than he would like to.  Or as Sax pointed out if you really want to adhere to the min rule you have to assign an additional squad to up the min AC.  This ensures that when a squads shows up short in numbers the other squads numbers will cover the min AC requirement.  I can tell you that I don't.  I assign just enough by the Max squad strength and take the penalties as they come.  Its better to take the penalties for not upping enough min AC and distroy your targets than to up to many, have no escorts and lose the whole strike package with no damage to the target.

Squad size and splitting rules how squads can be split and into different AC.  There are times when I would like to task a squad and allow them to up a 3/4 to 1/4 mix of bombers or even just 1 or 2 bombers and the remainder in escorts but cannot by the FSO rules on splitting squads and AC.
 
What happens currently is that the smaller squads get tasked with more bombers duties than escorts.  TheBug made several good posts about this a few weeks ago.

Recommendations:

What would help on this issue in order to change the force structure of a Strike Packages would be to relax the Min / Max rules for each event especially for the bombers.  Limit only the "high proformance" AC for that time period and allow the CIC to plan more openly with his escorts and bombers.

Relax the squad AC splitting rules and allow any squad to be split or be tasked to fly any AC and at any strength the CIC see's fit.  And if that were 1 bomber and 9 escorts so be it.  As long as the general scenario rules are followed like having max numbers on jet AC as an example.  I would like the ability to add up target hardness pounds needed and then send in just enough AC with Ord's to do the job and let the rest of squad escort those AC whatever numbers they maybe.

Now to limit the CIC who would only JABO and never up bombers you could place restrictions on the what AC can carry Ord's.  As an example no fighters carring Ord's or only the lighter loads.  Target "hardness" especially the hangers can be addressed as well to make a planner use AC that carry the heavier Ord packages (bombers).

Stoney I am with you on this issue completely.  But I believe the FSO rules are limiting in many cases.  I believe if some of the FSO rule were relaxed you would see your escort to strike AC ratio's change.

Viper 61
Ops Officer
325th VFG

[Jackraid]

2 or more squads used as a base of fire to support that 1 squad.

That is ideal, but I feared we would not have a "credible" force for defense.  

[AKKuya]

I made an earlier post on having small squads 4-6 in sze be attached to larger squads.  This would help with the ratios of escorts and bombers  and making the game more enjoyable when both squads reap the mutual benefits of working together.

[Saxman]

Jack,

The same here. More to the point, because of the distances involved it meant that there was less of an opportunity for follow-up strikes so I needed to make sure there was enough ordinance for the job to get done the first time.

Also, the Allied resources were spread much thinner because we had more objectives to attack. As a result, more aircraft had to be dedicated to the actual strike package. This works even more towards the defender's advantage, because while THEIR ratio of attack to fighters doesn't change, the attacker's DOES. Two of my strike packages had three squadrons involved (two strike and one escort). Take away one of those targets, and that suddenly frees up THREE squadrons that can all be switched to a fighter role and used to bolster the escorts of the other strikes.

[vonKrimm]

One thing I have noticed in 12 or so FSO is that when one side has a more defensive oriented set-up, there seems to me to be a concentration of fighters at the objectives of the more offensively oriented side.  Thus there are many times when the # of CAP a/c exceeds the # of Escort a/c to a excessive degree.  Perhaps requiring measurable time intervals between squads launching would help.  i know that would mean leaving the fields open much longer and could be prone to abuse; just a suggestion.  Another thought is that the CAPs be required to perform scouting beyond the sector that their assigned base is in; but that is tough to verify of course.  On the matter of attaching smaller squads to larger squads, could work; but how about combining smaller squads with other small squads?

Go ahead and call me "n00b", "dweeb" or "tard"; don't hurt my feelings none.  I'm just trying to put forth thoughts on my perceived "limitations" with FSO set-ups.  Which I happily play in regardless.
 

[daddog]

If I recall one of the reasons we started using minimum requirements was a frame (some of you FSO vets will remember this) where one side just uped nothing but LA5’s. We had some good laughs (some players said they had nightmares for weeks about LA5's). Others were quite upset for good reason. I think it was Nefarious who started using minimums after that mess.

Using 500 players as a base line I think the CiC’s had about 10% of aircraft to play with after fulfilling the required 224 slots in the objectives in this last frame. Maybe giving the CiC’s more like 30% to use as they see fit would satisfy many of the issues/problems some have in planning.

Anyway just posting some thoughts. Good thread.  We are talking about it I the CM forum. 

[Saxman]

daddog,

The problem I mentioned in vonKrimm's thread is that the minimum requirements for the Allies left NO room for flexibility with the orders. I would have needed most of the squadrons to be at full strength just to meet our minimums for every aircraft. By contrast the Axis didn't have that restriction. They could reasonably meet their numbers with a much greater degree of flexibility since they didn't have to rely on squads being at full strength to do so.

Combined with having to spread resources out among more targets to attack (if I only had four targets to hit vs. five, I would have had at least three additional squadrons I could have distributed to other objectives) it seriously handcuffed what I could do.

I'd like to recommend not setting aircraft min/max until AFTER the sides are established. That way the CMs can more fairly determine ratios based on each side's ACTUAL projected numbers.

[Stoney]

Well, again, strictly from a Squad CO perspective.

On our mission, we had two squadrons tasked with strike and one squadron tasked with escort.  Given a 4-6 squad, a 7-10 squad, and an 11-15 squad, I'd probably put the 11-15 squad and the 4-6 squad in escort fighters, and leave the strike to the 7-10 squad.  Or, the two larger squads in escorts and the 4-6 squad in the strike role.

This is not a particular criticism of Sax's plan.  I personally thought he had a good plan and the orders were awesome.  The point I'm trying to make is that a few strikers with complete freedom of movement are greater than twice as many that have to get their ordnance off under duress.

This was intended as a purely tactical discussion, not something in conjunction with the min/max rules.  Now, if a CIC says "I did something a certain way because I was worried about hitting the minimums", that's a defensible argument that I can respect.

[Dantoo]

In the current FSO there is a requirement to have everybody up from different fields.  This instantly creates a requirement for forces to rendezvous.  As a minimum for attacking forces, without being overly conservative, the rendezvous shouldn't be over the target.

[Saxman]

In the current FSO there is a requirement to have everybody up from different fields.  This instantly creates a requirement for forces to rendezvous.  As a minimum for attacking forces, without being overly conservative, the rendezvous shouldn't be over the target.

In Frame 1 all strike packages were expected to rendezvous before even crossing over into enemy territory, and these rendezvous points were indicated on the map. If a strike package failed to coordinate their rendezvous with their escorts before proceeding to target this was in violation of the orders, which I even emphasized to make explicit: ALL STRIKES RENDEZVOUS WITH YOUR ESCORTS. The stated exception was if the strike commander chose to detach his escort as a fighter sweep, otherwise escorts were to remain with their strike package unless specifically released by the strike commander.

[Anaxogoras]

The problem I mentioned in vonKrimm's thread is that the minimum requirements for the Allies left NO room for flexibility with the orders. I would have needed most of the squadrons to be at full strength just to meet our minimums for every aircraft. By contrast the Axis didn't have that restriction. They could reasonably meet their numbers with a much greater degree of flexibility since they didn't have to rely on squads being at full strength to do so.

Hmmmm, I wouldn't quite say we need every squad to be at its maximum, but the total aircraft minimums is still greater than the total squad minimums.