Escort Fighters as Brigade Attachement?

[mld0806]

thanks for the polite reply

Ok, that's ok for you guys to do in HOI2. I never did it tough - call it whatever you want - but I had my way of handling the nigth bombers issue.

The only thing I'm trying to say is - that Paradox doesn't need to be accountable for night fighters in HOI2 - cause they where not meant to be. So neither are they accountable for "removing them in DD". I just read the HOI2 manual and it doesnt say escorts are also to be used for night. Honestly I think you guys don't have a point and are overfocussing on this night fighter stuff. You just put your fighters and interceptors on night mission ?

p.s. = I'm not against night fighters as such...

Just because it doesn't say it in the manual doesn't make it so. The doctrines and the range play into using them in these roles.

The manual also doesn't say that Fighters make the best aircraft to pair with your CAS.

Just putting your fighters and interceptors on night duty is not the same as using Escorts for the same role. Escorts do it more economically and better than either of the other two in the long run.

Whether they meant to or not, they modeled night fighters and long range fighters with the Escort (and I lean toward "meant to"). Just because they don't say it clearly in the manual doesn't make it any less true.

 

[AlainSki]

Spruce is Right

The Heinkel He 219 Uhu (Owl) was a famous night fighter used late in World War II by the Luftwaffe. The plane had been requested in 1942 and eventually developed into a superb aircraft that many speculate would have had a huge effect on RAF night bombing plans.

The Focke-Wulf Ta 154 Moskito was a fast night fighter designed by Kurt Tank and produced by Focke-Wulf late in World War II

These are just 2 examples of planes specifically developed for night-fighting. The point which is beeing missed is that night fighters and escort planes need the same characteristics to be effective namely,

- 2 Engines, to provide enough power on high altitude (to counter lancasters, b-51's etc.)
- Large tanks so that it could fly all night
- Heavy weaponry with large magazines to make sure that maximum damage could be dealt all night
- A large structure to provide space for the radar equipment

a direct result of this is a aerostructure similar to an escort fighter which needs to fly far, high, and carry lots of ammo to prevend it from having to fly back early and leave the bombers unattended. The specifically designed nightflyers where however not so manouverable as escorts planes as these needed to combat fighters instead of flying armories

*note that the germans where getting so desperate that they even used gunboated JU-88s to counter bombing strikes

 

[mld0806]

The Heinkel He 219 Uhu (Owl) was a famous night fighter used late in World War II by the Luftwaffe. The plane had been requested in 1942 and eventually developed into a superb aircraft that many speculate would have had a huge effect on RAF night bombing plans.

The Focke-Wulf Ta 154 Moskito was a fast night fighter designed by Kurt Tank and produced by Focke-Wulf late in World War II

These are just 2 examples of planes specifically developed for night-fighting. The point which is beeing missed is that night fighters and escort planes need the same characteristics to be effective namely,

- 2 Engines, to provide enough power on high altitude (to counter lancasters, b-51's etc.)
- Large tanks so that it could fly all night
- Heavy weaponry with large magazines to make sure that maximum damage could be dealt all night
- A large structure to provide space for the radar equipment

a direct result of this is a aerostructure similar to an escort fighter which needs to fly far, high, and carry lots of ammo to prevend it from having to fly back early and leave the bombers unattended. The specifically designed nightflyers where however not so manouverable as escorts planes as these needed to combat fighters instead of flying armories

*note that the germans where getting so desperate that they even used gunboated JU-88s to counter bombing strikes

There definitely did evolve a later emphasis on specific night fighter designs, mostly between the US, Germany, and UK. Prior to that the twin engine fighters were fitted with radar and used as night fighters (along with the occasional TAC bomber, as you pointed out).

Interestingly enough, the Ki-38 (later produced as the Ki-45) was one of the first primarily night-fighter designs of the war.

 

[unmerged(44587)]

Before I posted this I realised that gunboat has posted similar above:

Keep escorts as a brigade, and allow "Long range heavy fighter/nightfighter" as a seperate air unit, and allow late on development of drop tanks as a brigade for fighters = extra range at cost of increased fuel and supply use and slightly lower stats if fitted.

 

[AlainSki]

But the Ki-38 was an expirimental twin-engined plane. And again we descend in what defines a night-fighter from a long-range/twin-engine/escort plane.

However.

Me 110F-4 - The first real night fighter (specially designed for this usage, 3-crew) which used primitive search lights and radar in '41 is, according to my book which counts 673 pages purely on Warplanes from '34 untill '99, the first nightfighter ever. They state that the "Nightfighter" criteria during WW2 is a 2 man (or more) crew and a radar.

 

[Ex Mudder]

I think this thread will soon be moved to either the mod forum or the enhancement forum.

If I'm understanding the argument correctly, LR / Twin engine / Heavy fighters were often used for night fighting (historically); and secondly, were distinct from both the fighters generally considered "Multi Role" and those considered "Interceptors" (Speculation - the Mustang is listed as a MR, where it was actually used as an escort, once we added the Merlin Engine and drop tanks). Spitfires (Intercerptors) faced off against Me 109s; the Hurricanes (MR) chased the bombers and were later turned into Hurribombers (and HurriCats, for fleet defense vs Condors). Even the Spitfires were eventually fitted with rockets for ground attack by D-Day (later model Ints get ground attack).

There also seems to be an contention that twin engine fighters tended to lose to single engine fighters of the same generation, and thus were often "downgraded" to night figher roles.

It also seems that allowing LR Fighters as both brigades and divisions up to 1945 and then upgrading the LR Fighter III divisions to MR fighter IV divisions would satisfy most people. That would be an easy change, with L. Arm as the precident.

The concern seems to be that long range fighter patrols were rare in WWII, unless they were being used to sweep an area clean for the bombers, or were small unit actions over the water.

I've looked at the doctrines, and all they do is bump night defence by 50% for CAS, Tac, Nav, Strat, and Esc, and MR by 25%. Night Attack increases by 10% for CAS, Tac, Nav, Strat, Int, and by 5% for MR - with no increase for Esc (using the text files from the demo).

Unless they changed the doctrine realted values for Esc between HOI II and DD (which they may have), Doctrinally Int get +10% night attack, MR +5% Night Attack and +25% Night Defence, and Esc +50% night defence. So adding Esc as brigades to the bombers actually makes them better night fighters, they keep their +50% night defence, and pick up +10% night attack from the bomber tree.

My question: What would be the point of re-introducing the Escort Fighter Division, possibly renamed Long Range, Twin Engine, or Heavy Fighter. What can it do that MRs and Ints can't? Or that can't be modelled by sending Navs, Strats, or Tacs (Trans?) with Esc brigades on "fighter" sweeps. (CAS with intrinsic Esc brigades are just silly).

Or that can't be modelled with either a Night Fighting or a Extended Range Brigade for MRs and Ints (possibly activated by the Esc Tech Tree).

While I can see sending P-38 Lightnings on fighter sweeps over the ocean, you'd only send 50-100 of them against a target you were planning to bomb, to tickle and eliminate air defences. Same with P-51Ds w/ external drop tanks. I'm having trouble imagining sending 50-100 of those to buzz Berlin without a stream of bombers following in their wake. In both cases, brigaded bombers work fine to emulate that.

Persoanlly, I think the heavy fighter should be modelled - they existed, after all, so they should be in the game. Can any of you point to historical events of Heavy LR fighters being used as actual divisions (say, 72 unit wings), independant of bombers?

The only one to arise in this thread was their use as night fighters, in which it was their endurance and payload, not their range, which was important. This could be modelled by adding a Heavy Fighter / Night Fighter brigade of ME 110s (or whatever) to a MR Division to boost Range (probably unecessary), Night_Attack, Night_Defense (by another 25%), Endurance (Org, but the AI has trouble with org enhancing brigades), AirDetectionCapability (radar), or all of the above. And I'd activate it using Heavy (Escort) Fighter tech tree.

After all, why do you need a night fighter with a range of 800, 1000, or 1300, if you're using it defensively against enemy bombers over your own territory?

 

[TheLand]

OK. My proposal would be:

*Keep Escort Fighters as brigades but limit their tech development - so that they stop at Basic Tubojet Escort Fighters
*Mod them to have a range cap, rather than a range penalty

*Introduce Night Fighter brigades dependent on Escort Fighter tech and on Radar tech - e.g. you require Basic Escort Fighter and Advanced Decimetric Radar to get Basic Night Fighters. Effects of a Night Fighter brigade: small penalty to Air Attack but big benefit to Night Attack/Defence. Remove most of the existing bonuses to night combat stats. Modify Bomber units so they are unbrigadable with night fighters.


and .. .erm .. .that's it!

 

[mld0806]

I think this thread will soon be moved to either the mod forum or the enhancement forum.

If I'm understanding the argument correctly, LR / Twin engine / Heavy fighters were often used for night fighting (historically); and secondly, were distinct from both the fighters generally considered "Multi Role" and those considered "Interceptors" (Speculation - the Mustang is listed as a MR, where it was actually used as an escort, once we added the Merlin Engine and drop tanks). Spitfires (Intercerptors) faced off against Me 109s; the Hurricanes (MR) chased the bombers and were later turned into Hurribombers (and HurriCats, for fleet defense vs Condors). Even the Spitfires were eventually fitted with rockets for ground attack by D-Day (later model Ints get ground attack).

There also seems to be an contention that twin engine fighters tended to lose to single engine fighters of the same generation, and thus were often "downgraded" to night figher roles.

It also seems that allowing LR Fighters as both brigades and divisions up to 1945 and then upgrading the LR Fighter III divisions to MR fighter IV divisions would satisfy most people. That would be an easy change, with L. Arm as the precident.

The concern seems to be that long range fighter patrols were rare in WWII, unless they were being used to sweep an area clean for the bombers, or were small unit actions over the water.

I've looked at the doctrines, and all they do is bump night defence by 50% for CAS, Tac, Nav, Strat, and Esc, and MR by 25%. Night Attack increases by 10% for CAS, Tac, Nav, Strat, Int, and by 5% for MR - with no increase for Esc (using the text files from the demo).

Unless they changed the doctrine realted values for Esc between HOI II and DD (which they may have), Doctrinally Int get +10% night attack, MR +5% Night Attack and +25% Night Defence, and Esc +50% night defence. So adding Esc as brigades to the bombers actually makes them better night fighters, they keep their +50% night defence, and pick up +10% night attack from the bomber tree.

My question: What would be the point of re-introducing the Escort Fighter Division, possibly renamed Long Range, Twin Engine, or Heavy Fighter. What can it do that MRs and Ints can't? Or that can't be modelled by sending Navs, Strats, or Tacs (Trans?) with Esc brigades on "fighter" sweeps. (CAS with intrinsic Esc brigades are just silly).

Or that can't be modelled with either a Night Fighting or a Extended Range Brigade for MRs and Ints (possibly activated by the Esc Tech Tree).

While I can see sending P-38 Lightnings on fighter sweeps over the ocean, you'd only send 50-100 of them against a target you were planning to bomb, to tickle and eliminate air defences. Same with P-51Ds w/ external drop tanks. I'm having trouble imagining sending 50-100 of those to buzz Berlin without a stream of bombers following in their wake. In both cases, brigaded bombers work fine to emulate that.

Persoanlly, I think the heavy fighter should be modelled - they existed, after all, so they should be in the game. Can any of you point to historical events of Heavy LR fighters being used as actual divisions (say, 72 unit wings), independant of bombers?

The only one to arise in this thread was their use as night fighters, in which it was their endurance and payload, not their range, which was important. This could be modelled by adding a Heavy Fighter / Night Fighter brigade of ME 110s (or whatever) to a MR Division to boost Range (probably unecessary), Night_Attack, Night_Defense (by another 25%), Endurance (Org, but the AI has trouble with org enhancing brigades), AirDetectionCapability (radar), or all of the above. And I'd activate it using Heavy (Escort) Fighter tech tree.

After all, why do you need a night fighter with a range of 800, 1000, or 1300, if you're using it defensively against enemy bombers over your own territory?

Adding a night fighter brigade would overcome one of my larger complaints about the removal of a separate night fighter division, however it's a fix to a problem in that there were historically dedicated twin engine fighter groups (one Zerstorergruppe for the Luftwaffe and some P-38 equipped groups for the US). Night fighters were smaller units, but independent of any other group.

The P-38 was used extensively in a long range capacity, and there were many P-38 jockies that were multiple aces in the Pacific. The longer ranges proved a perfect setting for the twin engine fighter. When we discuss air warfare, we tend to focus primarily on Europe, as this is what we're familiar with from media and most of the historical focus, but air warfare was key in the Pacific as well. The entire reason naked volcanic rocks became useful was the ability to use them as airbases. And long range CAP by twin engine fighters was key to this.

But even in the ETO, there was a large airborne warfare component to the Battle of the Atlantic, mostly focused on the North Sea. Long range CAP was provided by the Allies to cover the convoys from FW-200 other convoy raiders as well as to provide protection for airborne ASW and anti-fleet patrol forces for both sides.

Signifigant? Not particularly. But then again, neither was Ethiopia in the long run, other than a ramp up to war.

Brigades could be one answer, but then raise the question: Why have all these air unit types in the first place? Have "Fighter" and "Medium Bomber", then have brigades for each that will differentiate them between Ground Attack, Air Superiority, Strategic Attack (for Logistical Strike, Naval, and Air Strike), and Naval Attack. Make everything multirole, and then customizable by brigade.

 

[gunboat]

OK. My proposal would be:

*Keep Escort Fighters as brigades but limit their tech development - so that they stop at Basic Tubojet Escort Fighters
*Mod them to have a range cap, rather than a range penalty

*Introduce Night Fighter brigades dependent on Escort Fighter tech and on Radar tech - e.g. you require Basic Escort Fighter and Advanced Decimetric Radar to get Basic Night Fighters. Effects of a Night Fighter brigade: small penalty to Air Attack but big benefit to Night Attack/Defence. Remove most of the existing bonuses to night combat stats. Modify Bomber units so they are unbrigadable with night fighters.


and .. .erm .. .that's it!

I would agree with this if we added either:

(1) drop tanks brigades (for longer range fighters)

OR

(2) or a long range FTR unit (much like the old ESC FTR unit in HOI2)

 

[TheLand]

I would agree with this if we added either:

(1) drop tanks brigades (for longer range fighters)

OR

(2) or a long range FTR unit (much like the old ESC FTR unit in HOI2)

Can I point people interested in this topic to a thread I've started at:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?p=5242141#post5242141

 

[lordy80011]

I say it again - an escort fighter is not a night fighter - it's as simple as that.

Again I say again - night fighters where not in HOI2. IIRC I never build a night fighter unit. There where leaders who gave a bonus during night time - and indeed there where some doctrine differences.

what are you really pointing at "bring back the escort fighter as a single unit, and let's also ad the nigth fighter as a single unit?"

The escort fighter unit in HoI2 vanilla served the role quite well, after appropriate doctrinal research, as the famous "night fighter" planes of WWII. The rolleyes icon is completely unnecessary, as there are plenty of individuals, such as myself, who feel that Mld0806 is entirely correct in terms of what he posted.

Speaking as an individual who has earned a Masters' level degree in the study of history, in a forum filled with individuals who, while having all levels of education (great and small), are also well informed on these matters, I think that there is no need to insist that you are correct when it is simply a matter that there are those who disagree with your point of view.

Respectfully,

 

[lordy80011]

thanks for the polite reply

Ok, that's ok for you guys to do in HOI2. I never did it tough - call it whatever you want - but I had my way of handling the nigth bombers issue.

The only thing I'm trying to say is - that Paradox doesn't need to be accountable for night fighters in HOI2 - cause they where not meant to be. So neither are they accountable for "removing them in DD". I just read the HOI2 manual and it doesnt say escorts are also to be used for night. Honestly I think you guys don't have a point and are overfocussing on this night fighter stuff. You just put your fighters and interceptors on night mission ?

p.s. = I'm not against night fighters as such...

Spruce, you are nit-picking, and what is more, after you thank someone else for their politeness, you proceed to post rudely. The individuals posting in this thread *do* have a point, and perhaps they would be communicating more productively and politely if you would refrain from posting things such as "Honestly I think you guys don't have a point" when they clearly *do*.

To the general readers of this thread: I think that the idea of having night-fighter, long-range, etc. brigades that are attachable to air units is a great idea, BTW.

 

[Der Bismarck]

How about this solution:

1. Keep escorts as a brigade attachment, but set a max range by tech advancements

2. Make another "brigade" attachment NIGHT FIGHTING/Radar EQUIPMENT, which can be attached to ANY plane/ship to enhance its capabilities. IRL, electronics were added to existing models to provide these capabilities. The bonuses could be adjusted by future tech research.

3. Return the Escort Fighters as a producable unit, renamed LR Fighters - give then some survailence capabilities, the LR platforms were used as recon planes

 

[Ex Mudder]

<snip>
The P-38 was used extensively in a long range capacity, and there were many P-38 jockies that were multiple aces in the Pacific. The longer ranges proved a perfect setting for the twin engine fighter. When we discuss air warfare, we tend to focus primarily on Europe, as this is what we're familiar with from media and most of the historical focus, but air warfare was key in the Pacific as well. The entire reason naked volcanic rocks became useful was the ability to use them as airbases. And long range CAP by twin engine fighters was key to this.

But even in the ETO, there was a large airborne warfare component to the Battle of the Atlantic, mostly focused on the North Sea. Long range CAP was provided by the Allies to cover the convoys from FW-200 other convoy raiders as well as to provide protection for airborne ASW and anti-fleet patrol forces for both sides.

I agree with you, in theory. The problem I've found playing the US and sending my Escs and Navs wandering around the Atlantic and the Pacific is that the Air Superiority, Convoy Raiding, Naval Strike, etc regions are too small. If I could order my LR Fighers to "conduct air superiority / recon in all provinces within 800 / 1000 / 1300 (miles? KM?)" of Oahu or Iceland, I would. But I need 1 squadron of Nav for the north north sea, a second for central north sea, a third for the western approaches, a 4th for the channel, and I can't even remember the names of the rest. I once stacked 10 planes in Oahu (Pearl Harbor) - 5 Esc, 5 Nav, and I still couldn't guard all of the approaches I could reach. I even experimented with CAS for close in and Nav for further away - same problem: too many sea zones, individual patrol areas too small, 10 plane limit on the air base (and 4 plane limit on the others).

With Brigaded Nav, I can control the approaches to Oahu with up to 10 Navs (I think, I'd have to actually play DD to be sure). I can fly 4 out of Wake, Midway, Iceland, Alaska, Samoa, etc. And my 1 plane quadrons of Brigaded Navs are no longer easy meat for enemy aircraft.

That being said, allow me to use my LR Fighters to patrol multiple regions (areas? I can never remember which is which)- The North Atlantic (from Iceland), North Sea, West Coast of North America, Eastern Seaboard, Central Pacific (From Hawaii), North Pacific (From Alaska), South Pacific (from Samoa), Phillippine Sea - the way you can with your Fleets - and super long range long endurance fighters suddenly become useful.

Heck, I'd love to be able to task my LR fighters to patrol Benelux, France, England, Germany, Northeast US, Southeast US, Southwest US, Northwest US, Japan, Poland, etc. Or even the Mediterranean or North Sea, like I can my fleets. But unless / until that functionality is added, the value of LR fighters in the game is seriously reduced due to excessive micromanagement and base stacking limits.

But I would like to thank you for your intelligent counter-arguments. As it is, I'll take 10 brigaded Navs over an air base overloading 10 Navs / 10 Escs, at least until "Long Range Recon" is added as an air mission, and Long Range Fighters return as a buildable division.

 

[Spruce]

Ok - what's wrong with your people .

I'm being accused of being impolite/nitpicking - did I say something impolite - please tell me what was? Isn't it allowed anymore to have a different opinion ?

I was in a good mood the whole day, and now some of you ruined that...

OK, next time we'll do a quick poll and the people that are in the minority will be the impolite and nitpickers ...

I do not recall that an escort fighter was intended to be a night fighter. And if people used it as a night fighter - so be it, I have no problem with that.

I was only saying that Paradox shouldn't be accounted for "removing the night fighter", but indeed accounted for "improving the way things are handled".

And I really like it the way it is for the moment in DD.

and ps = read TFM is not impolite - it's just a way of saying things.

 

[TheLand]

Ok - what's wrong with your people .

I'm being accused of being impolite/nitpicking - did I say something impolite - please tell me what was? Isn't it allowed anymore to have a different opinion ?

I felt that you repeated assertions without paying attention to the points that anyone else was making, and gave the impression that you were ridiculing the views of others rather than considering them.

I am sure all of this was entirely accidental, but it wound me up slightly, and I suspect did the same to others.

On any internet forum it's more difficult to read flippant remarks than it is to interpret them when made face to face or over the phone...

 

[Spruce]

I felt that you repeated assertions without paying attention to the points that anyone else was making, and gave the impression that you were ridiculing the views of others rather than considering them.

I am sure all of this was entirely accidental, but it wound me up slightly, and I suspect did the same to others.

On any internet forum it's more difficult to read flippant remarks than it is to interpret them when made face to face or over the phone...

I agree, but to me it's a surprise cause I never used the old escorts from HOI2 as night figthers. I always build lots of INT early war and then go for Fighters to do some deep sweap missions.

Now, to continue this discussion - I'm still on the other side - is it really so hard now to hold of the nightbombers like some people have asked ?

Cause the only alternative is to go back to the old system, and I kinda like the new one. I didn't lose any bomber units in DD - just lots of strength and it took my bombers out of action - but they were not gone like in HOI2. I feel like having less micromanagement with the DD system compared to the HOI2 system.

 

[nbjjb]

I’m still waiting for my copy of DD so I’m not clear on how the new escort brigade works. Does it reduce the range of anything its attached to by 150, or does it set a limit on max range?

 

[blue emu]

I’m still waiting for my copy of DD so I’m not clear on how the new escort brigade works. Does it reduce the range of anything its attached to by 150

Yes.

... or does it set a limit on max range?

No, but that's how it SHOULD work.

In real life, Escort Fighters have a greater range than Stukas... why in the world should they reduce a Stuka's range by -60%?

 

[nbjjb]

Ok that’s what I was afraid of. It makes absolutely no sense for the same escort fighter to have its range reduced just because its attached to a different squadron. It makes even less sense that they would build a different model to escorts strategic bombers and tactical bombers only with a reduced range. I can’t think of any good justification for this. Does anyone think -150 to range across the bored works well?