Rules Only: Any advice on Aircraft Combat Rules in Traveller?

[Timerover51]

Make sure that whatever data you look at breaks it down by country and year the attacks occurred. One reason the Japanese went to suicide attacks was that by 1944, they were loosing up to 90% of their attacking planes, with very few hits to show for it.

 

[kilemall]

Make sure that whatever data you look at breaks it down by country and year the attacks occurred. One reason the Japanese went to suicide attacks was that by 1944, they were loosing up to 90% of their attacking planes, with very few hits to show for it.

Captain Hughes in his classic Fleet Tactics book described the WWII carrier attacks as pulses of ship destruction.

In the early part of the war the carrier pulses were devastating. As the war progressed and tech like radar, AA fusing and beefed up gun batteries came they reduced relatively particularly against the USN.

 

[gchuck]

No matter what 'system' you use, you're going to want to separate the air and ground portions of the combat. As stated earlier, the 'air' is going to move at greatly accelerated rate.
In '91 one of the guys at the LGC made maps of all the airfields and anchorages at Pearl Harbor. Using the 'Air Force' system we 'reenacted' the surprise attack by the Japanese (quite literally an all-day scenario).
Even at that 'scale', there was absolutely NO ground movement!

 

[whartung]

Even at that 'scale', there was absolutely NO ground movement!

Well, the USS Nevada moved during Pearl Harbor. About a dozen planes were crewed, taxied, and took off.

And ships absolutely moved while underway. 20-30 knots is not nothing, evasive action was a real thing. More like clouds, you look up and they seem still. But look away and look up again, and they've moved.

 

[Enoki]

Captain Hughes in his classic Fleet Tactics book described the WWII carrier attacks as pulses of ship destruction.

In the early part of the war the carrier pulses were devastating. As the war progressed and tech like radar, AA fusing and beefed up gun batteries came they reduced relatively particularly against the USN.

That was only true until stand-off weapons appeared like, Fritz X, the Hs 293, or BAT. Then the attacking aircraft regained the advantage. This, in turn, forced the development of guided missiles for ship defense (SAMs).

 

[kilemall]

That was only true until stand-off weapons appeared like, Fritz X, the Hs 293, or BAT. Then the attacking aircraft regained the advantage. This, in turn, forced the development of guided missiles for ship defense (SAMs).

Fortunately for the Allies there were not widespread deployments of that tech, perhaps the resources poured into v weapons would have more profitably gone into a general program of precision air weapons.

For the Germans maybe not even go for major warships, but convoys and CVEs.

Been years since I read it, but IIRC Hughes cited a big scale real example of upending the air defenses- the kamikaze campaign. Serious threat that sank some and damaged dozens including several carrier mission ‘kills’ and truly forced the next gen AA you noted.

 

[Enoki]

Fortunately for the Allies there were not widespread deployments of that tech, perhaps the resources poured into v weapons would have more profitably gone into a general program of precision air weapons.

For the Germans maybe not even go for major warships, but convoys and CVEs.

Been years since I read it, but IIRC Hughes cited a big scale real example of upending the air defenses- the kamikaze campaign. Serious threat that sank some and damaged dozens including several carrier mission ‘kills’ and truly forced the next gen AA you noted.

The Allies recognized the threat, but at the time those weapons weren't super accurate. Yes, they were better than an unguided bomb, but the guidance systems weren't highly reliable or accurate. Against kamikaze attacks, improvements in CAP procedures and operations made those prohibitively expensive for the amount of damage inflicted even if the threat was seen as very serious.

Both the US and British response was to start developing SAMs for naval use.

 

[Timerover51]

That was only true until stand-off weapons appeared like, Fritz X, the Hs 293, or BAT. Then the attacking aircraft regained the advantage. This, in turn, forced the development of guided missiles for ship defense (SAMs).

Both the Fritz X and the Hs 292 were radio-controlled and could be jammed. The BAT was a self-contained active radar homing missile and was harder to jam. The Japanese were working on infra-red homing bombs at the end of the war, as was the U.S. It was the combination of the kamikazes and the stand-off weapons that drove post-war air defense missiles.

The following images is the data on the HS293 radio-controlled bomb and a detailed drawing of the workings of the Fritz-X.

 

[Enoki]

I think this one works pretty well for simulating something like a Midway scenario.

Dauntless (board game) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Timerover51]

I think this one works pretty well for simulating something like a Midway scenario.

Dauntless (board game) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I have not played that one, but I do enjoy the Avalon Hill game Battle of Midway. That does a reasonable job of simulating air to surface and surface to air action on a simplified scale. Probably my biggest complaint is that the give the Japanese ships far too high anti-aircraft ratings.

 

[McPerth]

I think this one works pretty well for simulating something like a Midway scenario.

Dauntless (board game) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Like Air Force, from where Dauntless came (at least AH revised game), it was not thought for large formations, but for small group action.

It would be useful as air combat rules for TL 6

 

[Enoki]

Like Air Force, from where Dauntless came (at least AH revised game), it was not thought for large formations, but for small group action.

It would be useful as air combat rules for TL 6

I would think it increasingly would work with higher TL's because the number of combatants would be an inverse square function. This can be seen historically where even in WW 1 you had mass formations of aircraft. Then WW 2. Since then the number of aircraft making a major strike or action has decreased to numbers you can count on your fingers. A single modern strike aircraft can carry more ordinance and firepower than a whole squadron of WW 2 aircraft could.

 

[Badenov]

A single modern strike aircraft can carry more ordinance and firepower than a whole squadron of WW 2 aircraft could.

Well, not exactly. What modern strike aircraft can do is put ordnance on a very small target reliably, which was why WW2/TL5 bombers carried huge loads - they were relying on luck to get that perfect hit rather than targeting electronics.

 

[Enoki]

Well, not exactly. What modern strike aircraft can do is put ordnance on a very small target reliably, which was why WW2/TL5 bombers carried huge loads - they were relying on luck to get that perfect hit rather than targeting electronics.

Example: A 12-plane squadron of SBD, Stuka, etc., each carrying 1 1000 lbs. bomb is a 12,000 lbs. ordinance load. A single A-6 Intruder can carry up to 18,000 lbs. of ordinance. An F-15E Strike Eagle can carry up to 23,000 lbs. ordinance and external fuel. Either could easily manage a 12,000 lbs. loadout.

So, one modern strike plane equals a squadron of WW 2 strike aircraft or fighter bombers. And, yes, that one plane has a much greater capacity to put the ordinance on target.

A single 1960's-ish bomber like a B-52, Tu 95, or the like likewise carries an ordinance load of an entire squadron of WW 2 era heavy bombers. Even the difference between a late 1930's and 1940's heavy bomber, say like a B-17 versus a B-29, has the later carrying several times the load of the former.

 

[Badenov]

Example: A 12-plane squadron of SBD, Stuka, etc., each carrying 1 1000 lbs. bomb is a 12,000 lbs. ordinance load. A single A-6 Intruder can carry up to 18,000 lbs. of ordinance. An F-15E Strike Eagle can carry up to 23,000 lbs. ordinance and external fuel. Either could easily manage a 12,000 lbs. loadout.

So, one modern strike plane equals a squadron of WW 2 strike aircraft or fighter bombers. And, yes, that one plane has a much greater capacity to put the ordinance on target.

A single 1960's-ish bomber like a B-52, Tu 95, or the like likewise carries an ordinance load of an entire squadron of WW 2 era heavy bombers. Even the difference between a late 1930's and 1940's heavy bomber, say like a B-17 versus a B-29, has the later carrying several times the load of the former.

I was thinking more like a B-17 or -29 than a Stuka, but yes, in WW2, a squadron of dive bombers might combine to take out a ship that a modern jet fighter/bomber can sbolutely solo.

 

[mike wightman]

I don't think a single WWII plane could carry the ordnance the B2 bomber just demonstrated, rather impressive.

Ordnance - military munitions
Ordinance - documents, can be equally scary

 

[Enoki]

I don't think a single WWII plane could carry the ordnance the B2 bomber just demonstrated, rather impressive.

Ordnance - military munitions
Ordinance - documents, can be equally scary

Damn spellchecker AI...

 

[Condottiere]

A long, unobstructed bomb bay meant that the Lancaster could take the largest bombs used by the RAF, including the 4,000 lb (1,800 kg), 8,000 lb (3,600 kg) and 12,000 lb (5,400 kg) "blockbusters", loads often supplemented with smaller bombs or incendiaries. The "Lanc", as it was known colloquially,[3] became one of the most heavily used of the Second World War night bombers, delivering 608,612 long tons (618,378,000 kg) of bombs in 156,000 sorties.[4] The versatility of the Lancaster was such that it was chosen to equip 617 Squadron and was modified to carry the Upkeep "bouncing bomb" designed by Barnes Wallis for Operation Chastise, the attack on German Ruhr valley dams. Although the Lancaster was primarily a night bomber, it excelled in many other roles, including daylight precision bombing, for which some Lancasters were adapted to carry the 12,000 lb (5,400 kg) Tallboy and then the 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) Grand Slam earthquake bombs (also designed by Wallis).[5] This was the largest payload of any bomber in the war.

 

[mike wightman]

Damn spellchecker AI...

Silliness aside I think you make a very valid point about aircraft performance. I'd never delved into the bomb load of the B17 B29 and Landcaster with a mind to a modern comparisson,

The B52, especially the next upgrade, is still a monster.

 

[Condottiere]

The bomb, weighing 27 tonnes (30 short tons), was so large (8 m (26 ft) long by 2.1 m (6 ft 11 in) in diameter) that the Tu-95V had to have its bomb bay doors and fuselage fuel tanks removed.[2][46] The bomb was attached to an 800-kilogram (1,800 lb), 1,600-square-metre (17,000 sq ft) parachute, which gave the release and observer planes time to fly about 45 km (28 mi) away from ground zero, giving them a 50 percent chance of survival.[40]