Air warfare

[plasticpanzers]

Create an air base HQ. until it arrives physically at the airbase aircraft operate at 10% capacity. This air base HQ is the unit with all the
gear and personal (make it a 3000 brigade) otherwise the airbase is running from local supplies and what is flown in by small numbers of
transports (ie Guadalcanal). Details of the characteristics of the air base HQ can be hammered out for ground defence and AA strength.
The airunits still draw supplies as normal but without a air base HQ the base operates at a very limited capacity nomatter how large.

 

[Darkath]

I would argue that the Me262 was superior to any allied plane and that didnt have a big impact because of numerical advantage on the enemy side

It didn't have a big impact because it was too late. Germany was already lost at this point.

 

[shri]

Are you sure you mean history and not computer games?

Actually history teaches us exactly the opposite. Never, in any theatre, technical superiority alone caused any "slaughtering", that is a very "gamey" presumption.

I am not sure, why
"+1 Agreed Bf-109 should make short work of Fairy Gloucestor and early USSR fighters, similarly Me-262 should destroy any plane in its path easily. This was historical."
this "should" happen, as it never happened in RL. Not even on eastern front or anywhere else. Yeah, the neonazi porn, ahem, I mean revisionist literature describes the german eagles shooting the Ivans in hundreds every day, but reality was a bit more restrained )
Btw what the hell is Fairy Gloucestor? Why don't you check wikipedia for 10 seconds before you embarass yourself?

Of course, the side with obsolete machines achieved less and suffered higher losses (in terms of, say, few tens of percent), but they could always hold their ground *IF* they had enough experience and could adapt their tactics - how to avoid combat if possible, switch to higher/lower attitude/night etc, or to lure the opponent into situations, which were not that advantageous for him (for example, VVS pilots of the nimble Polikarpovs luring Germans into WWI style maneuver dogfights..at least initially).

And yes, there were cases of almost whole squadrons destroyed at once (Swordfishes in "Channel Dash", Fairey Battles in French campaign etc.), but even then, low tech planes were not an issue, obsolete doctrine was (=reckless, suicidal, low level bombing with insufficient escorts).

It's the man, not the machine (quote, IIRC by Chuck Yeager, an authority in this regard I guess ).

of all theaters, for example:
PZL 11 was clearly inferior to Bf 109 - yet no slaughtering happened and polish and german losses were actually on comparable level.
Check your sources for other examples if you want.
However, once one side had substantial edge in terms of pilot experience and doctrine advantage, although the technical difference was not THAT big, well, yeah, it was a pretty decent slaughter - see Mariana Turkey Shoot for example.

So this is what I would like to see.
Inferior planes but pilots/leadership on par - let's say, you are pulling the shorter end..higher attrition, less damage to opponents, but that's it
Inferior planes (or even equal, or slightly better planes!!) but green pilots/outdated doctrines/bad leadership - well, that will be a slaughter, say goodbye to your airforce in a matter of months.

Fairy Swordfish is what i meant and guess most got it.
As to your hypothesis of Polish achieving parity, if your troops get bombed at will and strafed is achieving parity, then Luftwaffe got parity on D-Day and beyond.
Facts state otherwise, think beyond politics.

It's the man, not the machine..... Tell that to the Iraqi Pilots facing modern American Jets... these were battle hardened veterans of the Iran-Iraq war and were slaughtered on their own airspace in a matter of days.

As for the VVS of the USSR, some 157000 produced during war and 10000-20000 pre-war, that is over 175000 less than a sixth remained at the end of the war, did they all magically die?? Overall Allied production was in excess of 600000 planes as compared to the Axis producing about 225000 planes and the allies did lose at a ratio of 2:1, substantial part of it were VVS losses.

As for the Mariana turkey shoot, please read engineering papers, compare armor etc of the Zeros and USAF planes, USAF planes were having protected fuel tanks and cockpits and survived a lot of attacks despite getting shot, the Zeros had very little protection, once the USAF and Carrier Pilots discovered the weakness, they became sitting ducks or turkeys.

 

[seattle]

I would argue that the Me262 was superior to any allied plane and that didnt have a big impact because of numerical advantage on the enemy side

Way too simplified.
The ME-262's engines produced a lot of heat that rendered the plane inoperable after a few flight hours. The only feasible solution was Tungsten (high heat resistance). Tungsten had to be aquired mostly from Turkey. The UK was aware of that and pre-emptively bought large quantities of Tungsten from Turkey lest Germany gets it.
=> Overheating problems couldn't be completely resolved leading to high attrition even without hostile contact

Then there was the existing air superiority of the Allies. They knew they couldn't compete in a dogfight with the ME-262 because of their speed. During take-off and landing however, the ME-262 was vulnerable. Any German airfield within the Allied reach couldn't utilize the ME-262 for that reason.

Unfortunately the reality is always way more boring than fiction. I hope that ME-262 and even more the Hortens will kick ass, but only if you can get a Tungsten supply rolling. This would also add a strategic element to the game.
Greenhills "Third Reich Victorious" or "The Hitler Options" (don't recall which one) had a nice chapter how the war would have turned out with earlier production of the ME-262. Their conclusion was a downer really...

 

[shri]

Way too simplified.
The ME-262's engines produced a lot of heat that rendered the plane inoperable after a few flight hours. The only feasible solution was Tungsten (high heat resistance). Tungsten had to be aquired mostly from Turkey. The UK was aware of that and pre-emptively bought large quantities of Tungsten from Turkey lest Germany gets it.
=> Overheating problems couldn't be completely resolved leading to high attrition even without hostile contact

Then there was the existing air superiority of the Allies. They knew they couldn't compete in a dogfight with the ME-262 because of their speed. During take-off and landing however, the ME-262 was vulnerable. Any German airfield within the Allied reach couldn't utilize the ME-262 for that reason.

Unfortunately the reality is always way more boring than fiction. I hope that ME-262 and even more the Hortens will kick ass, but only if you can get a Tungsten supply rolling. This would also add a strategic element to the game.
Greenhills "Third Reich Victorious" or "The Hitler Options" (don't recall which one) had a nice chapter how the war would have turned out with earlier production of the ME-262. Their conclusion was a downer really...

Geo-Politics played a part in the Tungsten war too, Portugal and Turkey (both possible sources) in late 1942 would have been more agreeable to supply (German Forces were still strong at that time and could threaten and bully), but in early 1944 (rendered impotent). So an early production of Me-262 would have had the necessary required qty of tungsten. Fighter/Interceptor version in late 1942, even if a 1000 had been fielded by early-mid 1943 and used in big wings against American daylight bombers of Russian massed attacks would have caused tremendous casualties for the allies in the hands of the skilled pilots (Luftwaffe had a horde of skilled pilots in 1942-43 left).

 

[Wulf145]

I agree, the Lack of a Slider was, and is one of my Major Gripes about Airwarfare in HoI 3

 

[Beagá]

One weapon alone never wins a war, specially if it´s just na evolution not a revolution and if you´re outnumbered and exhausted.

 

[GhengisKhan]

One weapon alone never wins a war, specially if it´s just na evolution not a revolution and if you´re outnumbered and exhausted.

Never is a strong word. I believe the nuclear bomb is a weapon that could win a war even for a losing side.

 

[Arthasus]

nuclear bomb was greatest revolution in warfare ever, so I guess that doesn't fit what Beagá said
and even that when you are losing against determined attacker 1 bomb won't save you (and even USA couldn't produce them fast at first)

 

[Secret Master]

Never is a strong word. I believe the nuclear bomb is a weapon that could win a war even for a losing side.

At WWII tech? Nah.

You still have to deliver it, and you need more than one. If you have lost control of the skies (as in, the Allies are running air superiority over your air fields and you can't even launch planes), you can't deliver it to the proper targets. You could try driving it to Belgium for the Battle of the Bulge, but that's not a war winning move with atomic bombs at that technological level.

You also have to actually able to launch planes that can carry it with the range to the proper targets. If Japan doesn't have bombers that can reach CONUS, how can they win the war with nukes? The Allies will still just convoy raid them to death outside range of their bombers. And someone will no doubt chime in with "But you can nuke the CTFs off the coast of Japan if they try and invade" but the Allies can convoy raid with submarines (and they did so), and you can't nuke every single submarine convoy raiding even if Japan still holds the DEI. Nukes won't stop Japan from being starved into submission (or irrelevance).

If Italy gets its hand on the bomb after Operation Husky is launched, it's too late. You think Mussolini gets arrested for being a failure under normal circumstances, wait until he tries to nuke Sicily or southern Italy to repel Husky or Avalanche. And Italy doesn't have bombers capable of delivering bombs to London or Washington DC from Italy. Although, in fairness to Italy, if they can get a bomber with a nuclear payload off the ground, they might be able to hit the Suez. But that won't make the Allies surrender.

 

[misterbean]

At WWII tech? Nah.

You still have to deliver it, and you need more than one. If you have lost control of the skies (as in, the Allies are running air superiority over your air fields and you can't even launch planes), you can't deliver it to the proper targets. You could try driving it to Belgium for the Battle of the Bulge, but that's not a war winning move with atomic bombs at that technological level.

You also have to actually able to launch planes that can carry it with the range to the proper targets. If Japan doesn't have bombers that can reach CONUS, how can they win the war with nukes? The Allies will still just convoy raid them to death outside range of their bombers. And someone will no doubt chime in with "But you can nuke the CTFs off the coast of Japan if they try and invade" but the Allies can convoy raid with submarines (and they did so), and you can't nuke every single submarine convoy raiding even if Japan still holds the DEI. Nukes won't stop Japan from being starved into submission (or irrelevance).

If Italy gets its hand on the bomb after Operation Husky is launched, it's too late. You think Mussolini gets arrested for being a failure under normal circumstances, wait until he tries to nuke Sicily or southern Italy to repel Husky or Avalanche. And Italy doesn't have bombers capable of delivering bombs to London or Washington DC from Italy. Although, in fairness to Italy, if they can get a bomber with a nuclear payload off the ground, they might be able to hit the Suez. But that won't make the Allies surrender.

I doubt that nukes would even target the CTF. It is my understanding that they only target province improvements, infrastructure and NU.

 

[Secret Master]

I doubt that nukes would even target the CTF. It is my understanding that they only target province improvements, infrastructure and NU.

I was thinking in terms of real life in 1940-1946, but yes, in HOI3, nukes couldn't be used tactically at all.

Historically, some American planners wanted to hold back some nukes for Operation Downfall to use tactically. But we're talking 1946, of course, when they would have had time to make enough.

 

[RisingSun]

At WWII tech? Nah.

You still have to deliver it, and you need more than one. If you have lost control of the skies (as in, the Allies are running air superiority over your air fields and you can't even launch planes), you can't deliver it to the proper targets. You could try driving it to Belgium for the Battle of the Bulge, but that's not a war winning move with atomic bombs at that technological level.

You also have to actually able to launch planes that can carry it with the range to the proper targets. If Japan doesn't have bombers that can reach CONUS, how can they win the war with nukes? The Allies will still just convoy raid them to death outside range of their bombers. And someone will no doubt chime in with "But you can nuke the CTFs off the coast of Japan if they try and invade" but the Allies can convoy raid with submarines (and they did so), and you can't nuke every single submarine convoy raiding even if Japan still holds the DEI. Nukes won't stop Japan from being starved into submission (or irrelevance).

If Italy gets its hand on the bomb after Operation Husky is launched, it's too late. You think Mussolini gets arrested for being a failure under normal circumstances, wait until he tries to nuke Sicily or southern Italy to repel Husky or Avalanche. And Italy doesn't have bombers capable of delivering bombs to London or Washington DC from Italy. Although, in fairness to Italy, if they can get a bomber with a nuclear payload off the ground, they might be able to hit the Suez. But that won't make the Allies surrender.

Exactly, there so many things can go wrong. But still have to find a way to deliver, just become you got techs and got one made, doesnt mean you will be successful with it. Like USS Indianapolis (CA-35) trying to deliver the first parts of atomic bomb...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Indianapolis_(CA-35)

 

[Dalwin]

Fairy Swordfish is what i meant and guess most got it.
As to your hypothesis of Polish achieving parity, if your troops get bombed at will and strafed is achieving parity, then Luftwaffe got parity on D-Day and beyond.
Facts state otherwise, think beyond politics.

It's the man, not the machine..... Tell that to the Iraqi Pilots facing modern American Jets... these were battle hardened veterans of the Iran-Iraq war and were slaughtered on their own airspace in a matter of days.

As for the VVS of the USSR, some 157000 produced during war and 10000-20000 pre-war, that is over 175000 less than a sixth remained at the end of the war, did they all magically die?? Overall Allied production was in excess of 600000 planes as compared to the Axis producing about 225000 planes and the allies did lose at a ratio of 2:1, substantial part of it were VVS losses.

As for the Mariana turkey shoot, please read engineering papers, compare armor etc of the Zeros and USAF planes, USAF planes were having protected fuel tanks and cockpits and survived a lot of attacks despite getting shot, the Zeros had very little protection, once the USAF and Carrier Pilots discovered the weakness, they became sitting ducks or turkeys.

The parity referred to for Poland is the losses of aircraft and men in direct air to air engagements. The point being that their outdated equipment performed fairly well.

Taking that to what happened on the rest of the front is actually you arguing against your earlier point instead of for it since it all resulted from the overwhelming numerical superiority Germany had rather than the quality of the planes. As also pointed out in this thread a lot of it came down to doctrine and how the air support missions were assigned and controlled. Gone were the days of WWI when pilots simply patrolled a sector and strafed targets of oportunity.

 

[Alex_brunius]

At WWII tech? Nah.

You still have to deliver it, and you need more than one. If you have lost control of the skies (as in, the Allies are running air superiority over your air fields and you can't even launch planes), you can't deliver it to the proper targets. You could try driving it to Belgium for the Battle of the Bulge, but that's not a war winning move with atomic bombs at that technological level.

How about aboard a submarine on a one way trip up the river Thames or into New York harbor?

Or smuggled on a "civilian" ship under neutral/false flag same way the merchant raiders did?

 

[Dalwin]

Anyone using the earliest nukes is essentially deploying prototypes and does not have several more of them coming off an assembly line somewhere. The idea of taking your one and only shot or even one of three in a manner that might very easily be intercepted is extremely unlikely. That does not even go into the concept of suicide missions which are a lot different from extremely high risk missions.

 

[Secret Master]

How about aboard a submarine on a one way trip up the river Thames or into New York harbor?

Or smuggled on a "civilian" ship under neutral/false flag same way the merchant raiders did?

Weren't all the major harbors mined and required a ton of luck or ENGIMA telling you where the mines and submarine nets were to let you through? Or just an escort?

As for civilian ships, it was my understanding that the enforcement of the British blockade meant shipping had to go through their ports. So, while you could detonate in a British city, it wouldn't be London. And that assumes you just detonate it in the harbor before your vessel is searched.