Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Friday Squad Operations => Topic started by: funkedup on January 05, 2002, 06:47:00 PM
-
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.
A good way to prevent this is to put multiple small squadrons together into one unit. For fighters I think 8-12 is the minimum size to have a chance against the mega-squads.
To make multiple squadrons act as a unit, it is not sufficient to just tell the squadrons to go to the same target or patrol the same area. The CO needs to make one of the squadron leaders the commander of the unit and subordinate the other squadron leader(s) to be flight leads in the unit.
Real fighter units did not have a half dozen independent flights operating all over the place with no chain of command. They had group leaders who commanded multiple squadrons, squadron leaders who commanded multiple flights, flight leaders who commanded multiple elements, and element leaders who commanded their wingmen.
This arrangement did not come about by chance or because people were anal retentive. It came about through hard lessons learned in battle. The more attention we pay to these lessons, the better our performance will be in TOD.
[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Good post.
-
FYI: MAG-33 is already 2 separate flights, usually we have 1 flight of 6-8 and another flight that is strictly heavy for the target (approx. 6-8).
-
<S> Funked for a well thought out post.
I would like to raise a point from a different direction. I think that concentrating force as ou suggest will lead to the TOD descending into a big furball, both sides just upping a big wave of fighters to slug it out. I was a bit worried that this might be the way it's headed after the Allies put up La5's only in the second Black Sea frame. While using your best aircraft exclusively in large numbers is a good way to knock out enemy aircraft, diversity and tactics are the things drawing me to the TOD. Only seeing one enemy aircraft type all frame and having these just try to overwhelm the opposition with numbers is to me a bit of a disappointment.
And while I agree that using one large force to accomplish a given objective works well, maybe we can spread the action out a bit more compared to last frame (as it was in other TOD's before) so that it gives a better chance for tactics to come into play, rather than just overwhelming the opposition with sheer numbers. I can get that in the MA any time.
Anyway, just my ramblings... Keep the TOD's evolving guys, I look forward to the ride.
-
At one point I could have sworn we had a rule saying no more than 2 squads could be sent after a single target.
I think the reintroduction of that rule, and changing "2 squads" to "24 aircraft" would achieve what Mako is talking about.
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) and a chain of command instead of independent flights all reporting to central command.
[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
We have about 17 squads in the Friday TOD, about 8 squad per side.
With three objectives and three targets to protect that is something for 6 squads to do. That leaves 2 squads per side to "pump it up" offensive or defensively as the Frame C.O. sees fit.
I do remind the Frame C.O.’s to attack all three objectives and to defend the three potential targets. I don’t want to restrict the number of AC a Frame C.O. would assign to the Primary, Secondary, or Alternate objectives. Or how many they want to CAP what they want to protect. Sometimes we will have a squad with 4 pilots engage a squad with 14, but that can't be helped. I don't think it is the norm, but it is something we all will experience.
-
Sometimes we will have a squad with 4 pilots engage a squad with 14, but that can't be helped.
It can be helped. As long as squads meet their registered numbers, the Frame CO can prevent it from happening. That's what I'm advocating in this thread.
[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Just another thought, going back to my experience from Clearing the Phillipines.
During the first frame the 412th were tasked with bombing the ports. To accomplish this, we were flying F4U-1D's with bombs and rockets. We had no escort so Tango and myself were assigned as high cover. We dropped our ordinance and climbed to a position about 5k above the rest of the squadron.
Thus we had 2 fighters covering 6 attack aircraft. Just before we reached the target, Tango and I engaged 6 enemy Ki61s. Tango and I kept the fighters busy while the attack aircraft made their run and egressed. The enemy Ki61s were so busy trying to kill the two of us that they completely ignored the rest of the flight.
The moral of the story is that because Tango and I did not press for kills but just kept the enemy busy, we were able to cover the rest of the squadron. Against 3 to 1 odds we kept the initiative and then were able to disengage and rtb without receiving any damage. Why? Because we weren't as interested in getting kills as in getting the mission done.
If the escorts aren't pressing for fighter-fighter kills then a small force can keep a larger one at bay by flying smart and not giving away any advantage to get a kill. This will then allow the attack aircraft to get to their target and accomplish the mission.
My point is that you can defeat the enemy effectively by flying smart rather than relying on numbers or flying for kills.
-
It's pretty easy if your plane is 50 mph faster than the enemy. :)
But Mako is right. Every fight doesn't have to be a fight to the death. Try teaching that to some of these guys though...
[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Heya Funky...its off topic, but did you get my private message?
-
Originally posted by funkedup:
It's pretty easy if your plane is 50 mph faster than the enemy. :)
Shhhhh! You'll make my story seem cheap. ;)
You are right, it is easier if you are faster but then if we'd tried to turn just for a second or two then those ki's would have been all over us...
-
The Allies flew nothing but La5s last frame?
-
Yup, Sax confirmed it after the mass dump.
-
Originally posted by funkedup:
It can be helped. As long as squads meet their registered numbers, the Frame CO can prevent it from happening. That's what I'm advocating in this thread.
[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: funkedup ]
Easier said than done geting your registered numbers to attend.
-
It can be helped. As long as squads meet their registered numbers, the Frame CO can prevent it from happening. That's what I'm advocating in this thread.
Funked how can two Frame C.O.'s who do not see each others plans insure that equal number pilots will be attacking and defending the same targets? That is what I am talking about. Again at times you will have a squad of 4 (registered) vs a squad of 11 (registered). There is nothing you can do about that.
If any of you have problems with pilots showing up then lower your registered numbers. We can balance the TOD before it starts, but once the Frame C.O.'s have the objectives there is no telling what squads (large or small) will attack or defend targets.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 ]
-
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 ]
-
Funked, yea I was aimed directly at that individual :)
Sax
-
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 ]
-
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
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ]
-
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.