Concentration of Force - CO Note

[Raubvogel]

Originally posted by Blue Mako:
Yup, Sax confirmed it after the mass dump.

That's really lame IMO. There should be a requirement utilize at least a few of each type.

[Dinger]

Daddog, that's not funked's point.
What he's arguing is something like this:
Instead of COs thinking in terms of squads, have them think in terms of effective units.
Take three groups, say MAG-33, the 56th FG and the 308th.
If a CO gives them all squadron-type assignments, you're going to see different levels of effectiveness, as MAG-33 has something like 15 people at any TOD, and the 56th and 308th each have around 4-6 pilots.
What happens in a case like this is a good supersquad, like MAG-33 breaks up into separate flights, each with its own leader.  On top of it is a "group leader"
What funked is saying is that a good CO should group together the small squads so that they function in a similar way.

To put it schematically, currently we see a system that in theory looks like this:

I. High Command

A. MAG-33
B. 56th FG
C. 308 RAF

but in practice is:
I. High Command
A. MAG-33 command
_1. Flight 1
_2. Flight 2
B. 56th FG
C. 308 RAF

So what Funked is proposing, if I understand him correctly is something like:
I. High Command
A. MAG-33 command
_1. Flight 1
_2. Flight 2
B. Second Group Command (say -ammo- of the 56)
 1. 56th FG (with say Frenchy leading it)
 2. 308 RAF

That way, if the 56th or the 308th get into trouble, there is somebody with the authority and the planes to bail them out.

[sax]

Whats lame about all this isn't what a frame CO does or who flys where in what.

Lame is all the whining that goes on.

If you see a better way, help these guys out by offering to help.
Make suggestions in a positive manner.
Give a Salute if everything goes perfect.
Give a Salute if it goes screwy, good try, better luck next time.

The majority here, including myself, have no idea what it takes every week to make these things go.
If you did, you wouldn't whine, you'd appreciate the effort the organizers put in for your pleasure.

Sax
13th Tas

[funkedup]

Sax is replying to Raubvogel right?

I don't see anything wrong with Sax's decision to use all La-5FN.  It's a multirole aircraft and we were able to accomplish our objectives with it.  I can't begin to fathom how this is "lame".

[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: funkedup ]

[funkedup]

Dinger's interpretation is correct.
I'm saying that fighter units should have a minimum unit size that allows them to have a chance against the larger units they might encounter.  This is a pretty basic military principle, nothing new here that I am inventing.

The frame CO can build these units by combining registered squadrons as illustrated in Dinger's example.

The key is that these synthetic units have one of the squadron leaders named as leader of the whole unit, with the other squadron leader(s) leading flights or sections of the unit.

[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: funkedup ]

[sax]

Funked, yea I was aimed directly at that individual

Sax

[Raubvogel]

That kind of defeats the purpose of having any other kind of aircraft in the scenario. Your opponent expects you to have at least a token bomber force. You field no bombers, while he does. Just seems like gaming the scenario to me. Most of us fly these things to get some immersion, sense of realism. How is that realistic? I really don't care if you think it's a whine or not, I still think it's lame. [edit] Here's why I think it's lame: You're right, the CM team takes alot of time to construct these scenarios. They figure out which plane types and what fields to fly them from to ensure that we have a good competitive, fun scenario. You field all of one plane type,  basically eliminating any variety during the course of the frame. Your opponent sees this and decides he's going to do the same thing next week. Next week you end up with 60 190A5s vs. 60 La5s in a big furball. Do you think thats what the CMs had in mind when they came up with the scenario idea? If you think that would be fun, so be it. I can do that in the MA. I play scenarios for a different reason.

Btw Sax, I'm the Axis CO this week,  and I've organized scenarios in others sims, I have an idea what it takes.

[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: Raubvogel ]

[sax]

Raubvogel, you are right about my tactics.
I am sure what I did broke some rules, plus defeated the immersion factor in the TOD.

I learned a lesson and will do a little better next time.

Your mistake was calling it lame. I'm sure there is a better way to bring your point to this board.
Salute

Sax
13th Tas

[Raubvogel]

Well, I really didn't think lame was a harsh word, but I apologize if it offended ya. Wasn't meant to be a dig, I just tend to speak my mind.

[daddog]

Funked, ding I understand what you are suggesting now. I think that is a fine idea, but forgive the slow thinker here.  

I see how it would make flights more “manageable” but I don’t see how it would insure that some squads or flights might still be overwhelmed at times.

There are some mega-squads in TOD with 15-20 planes in one formation. I've had my 4-6 ship squadron wiped out a couple of times by such squadrons.

That is what this thread is about still correct? Again if you have two Frame C.O.’s who don’t know what squads or flights the other Frame C.O. will assign to what targets, how can we avoid the smaller flights being wiped out by the larger flights?  

Forgive me if I am missing the obvious. Would not be the first time.  

I really want to understand what you suggest and I see how it would make it more organized and manageable for the sides if they put for the efforts you suggest, but I don’t see how it would help to avoid the large flights engaging much smaller flights.

 

My point though, is that Frame COs should make sure that we have a realistic minimum unit size (e.g. 12 planes in a squadron)

Frame C.O. could do this and I think that is a fine idea, but who is to say you will not have a flight of 12 run across a flight of 24?

 

I'm saying that fighter units should have a minimum unit size that allows them to have a chance against the larger units they might encounter. This is a pretty basic military principle, nothing new here that I am inventing.

This I understand and it makes great sense. Problem is say we have a minimum flight of 4 and two are combined for a total of 8. Then they come across two flights 8 for a total of 16. Or a flight of 12 and a flight of 4.

I don’t mind having a minimum flight rule. Right now it is at “3”. The smallest number a squad can commit to is 4 and they should not go under 66% which would be 3 pilots. If I make the minimum number 6 then we would/could lose several squads in the TOD. I know you guys don’t want that.

Still looking for a better way.  

<S>

Here to Serve!

[daddog]

Light went on...

Would you gents want 2 objectives per frame instead of 3? Then have a TOD rule that the smallest flight would be 6? That would combine two squads of 4 who have only 3 each show up.

[Blue Mako]

No!  I'm all for the fog-of-war approach.  IRL squads often fought against much superior numbers and never knew exactly how many bogies they would find.  Putting minimum number restrictions will just lead to less immersion and more work for the CO's IMO.  I think that if a CO wants to have organise large flights from several squads that should be up to them.

Also, I think more targets are better than less.  Give the CO's the chance to choose maybe 3 targets from a list of 5 or so.  Thus they can employ diversions and other tactics.  Limiting targets will lead to more small area concentrations of bad guys and pretty soon we will just have TOD furballs and no strategy IMO.

[AKIron]

In fact I know that CM's sometimes dictate that specific plane types are flown. At least that was the case during the Philipines scenario's when we were not allowed to fly all of one plane type.

Not a criticism here, just a suggestion, CM's should get together and standardize this. I recommend setting minimum numbers for each plane type before handing off to the Country CO's.

 

Originally posted by Raubvogel:


That's really lame IMO. There should be a requirement utilize at least a few of each type.

[funkedup]

Dad I don't think you guys need to change any rules.  This is just something I'm trying to point out to Frame CO's so they can use their troops more effectively.

   

who is to say you will not have a flight of 12 run across a flight of 24?

That could still happen.  But it's a heck of a lot better than a flight of 4 running across a flight of 24.      

   

say we have a minimum flight of 4 and two are combined for a total of 8. Then they come across two flights 8 for a total of 16. Or a flight of 12 and a flight of 4.

Against 16 ships, the 8 ship unit will have a better chance than two 4 ship units.  If the 4 ship units operate independently then it is possible that the 16 ship unit will fight them in series.  That is, there will be a 16 vs 4 fight and then another 16 vs 4 fight.  This gives the 16 ship flight a much better chance of victory than a single 16 vs 8 fight.

Now you might ask "What if the enemy has a 32 plane flight?"  But when you get to formations of that size it becomes counterproductive for two reasons.  

First reason is that AH will not draw more than 32 planes at once.  Anything beyond 32 shows up as a dot only.  If you have a 32 plane flight is possible you will never see the enemy.  However he will see at least some of the planes in your formation.  Not good for the 32 plane unit.

Second reason is the number of objectives.  If you have 64 planes in two 32 plane flights then you can only be in two places at once.  If you have to attack 3 targets and defend one, then you need to be in 4 places at once.  So 32 plane flights are out of the question.

And I'm not really arguing about the number of planes that are sent at a single objective.  I'm just saying that instead of sending (for example) three 4 plane units after an objective we need to send one 12 plane unit.  The key is that the 12 plane unit is under the command of one person instead of three persons, and everybody is on the same text or RW channel.

[ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: funkedup ]

[ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: funkedup ]

[daddog]

I appreciate the feed back gents and don't take it as criticisms. Generally thick skinned here.

I hear you funked. Though I think maybe a rule of a minimum flight size might be a good idea. If we don't have a rule like that then your squad (and others) could have more of those 4 vs. 16 engagements. Without a rule Frame C.O.'s will not be thinking about it and the smaller squads might sound like they are just whining. I think it is a legitimate reason for wanting to team up with another squad.

Let me mull it over and I will post a new rule for some feed back.