|
|
Post by williammiller on Oct 16, 2020 10:40:54 GMT -6
The only real advantage DBs have over late-game fighters is the ability to pull vertical dive-bomb attacks, compared to fighters mostly being limited to glide-bomb attacks (which are somewhat less accurate against certain target sets). For my part, I would take late-game fighters over dedicated dive bombers every time.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 16, 2020 11:22:52 GMT -6
The only real advantage DBs have over late-game fighters is the ability to pull vertical dive-bomb attacks, compared to fighters mostly being limited to glide-bomb attacks (which are somewhat less accurate against certain target sets). For my part, I would take late-game fighters over dedicated dive bombers every time. I totally agree, at a 30-45 degree angle and fighter-bomber can be very accurate and survive if you spec the fighter correctly. |
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Oct 17, 2020 23:24:09 GMT -6
I am certain that everyone is aware that the term "jabo" is a German term for fighter's carrying bombs conducting armed reconnaissance, interdiction and close support missions. Seeing as I neither know German nor can recall seeing "jabo" appear in any of the histories of the Second World War which I have read, no, I would not be certain that "everyone" is aware that "jabo" is a German term for fighter-bombers conducting armed reconnaissance missions. Indeed, I know German well enough to piece together that Jabo is to Jagdbomber as Gestapo is to Geheime Staatspolizei without needing further context, but not everyone knows German that well, and I've never come across the term "Jabo" in any of the WWII literature (although, admittedly, I've mostly read that literature in English). |
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Oct 18, 2020 7:51:02 GMT -6
I can't give specifics on effectiveness - I will say that a jack of all trades is king of none, and refer you to what Aeson wrote. Except that many of the characteristics that make a good fighter also make a good attack plane. Maneuverability and load carrying ability, for example, both depend on the ability to generate a lot of lift. Many world class fighters have also been world class attack planes. The same goes for carrier fighters: an average naval fighter might not be much good as a land based fighter, but the characteristics that make a plane excel as a carrier fighter make it an excellent land based fighter as well, and most of the really legendary carrier fighters have seen significant non-naval use (Corsair, Phantom, Tomcat, Hornet). |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 18, 2020 7:51:10 GMT -6
Seeing as I neither know German nor can recall seeing "jabo" appear in any of the histories of the Second World War which I have read, no, I would not be certain that "everyone" is aware that "jabo" is a German term for fighter-bombers conducting armed reconnaissance missions. Indeed, I know German well enough to piece together that Jabo is to Jagdbomber as Gestapo is to Geheime Staatspolizei without needing further context, but not everyone knows German that well, and I've never come across the term "Jabo" in any of the WWII literature (although, admittedly, I've mostly read that literature in English). The squadron was asked to come down again and strafe the positions after which the position was taken. POWs said the bombing was not so bad, but when the 'Jabos' strafed them they lost all will to fight and tended to make the men scatter for protection regardless of orders. Many were found hiding below the ground and they didn't offer much resistance. Many were killed at their guns and in their foxholes by the strafing.48 Gooderson, Dr Ian. Air Power at the Battlefront: Allied Close Air Support in Europe 1943-45 (Studies in Air Power) (Kindle Locations 4169-4173). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewm on Oct 18, 2020 18:11:51 GMT -6
I can't remember when I first came across the term Jabo but is something I have come across repeatedly in english language histories of late WW2 usually I think when discussing things from the German point of view and referring to the swarms of British and American fighter bombers on the western front. Like Oldpop2000 I would be suprised that anyone who reads a lot about WW2 is not familair with it , but it turns out that you can be, must be down to which books you read.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 18, 2020 18:38:34 GMT -6
I can't remember when I first came across the term Jabo but is something I have come across repeatedly in english language histories of late WW2 usually I think when discussing things from the German point of view and referring to the swarms of British and American fighter bombers on the western front. Like Oldpop2000 I would be suprised that anyone who reads a lot about WW2 is not familair with it , but it turns out that you can be, must be down to which books you read. The term Jagdebombers or Jabos was coined in the Allied POW camps to describe the weapon the German soldier feared the most. It was based on the missions executed by the IX Tactical Air Command. It was a standard German alert term used on radios to alert the troops and high command. |
|
|
|
Post by zedfifty on Oct 18, 2020 22:58:33 GMT -6
Jabo also comes up in write-ups about the Me-262 and Fw-190.
In a naval context, however, I agree that Jabo is really out there compared to Strikefighter or Fighter-Attack *uy.
Ghoulish bit of trivia -- Zero squadrons designated as fighter-bombers were called Tokko-tai (Special Attack Unit). Soon after, the term came to be used for kamikazes.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 19, 2020 8:20:16 GMT -6
just a note about "Jabos" attacking ships. In the SW Pacific and China, attacks by first P-40's and P-39's, then A-20's, B-25G's with a 75 mm. gun in the nose eventually P-47's and other newer aircraft attacked and wreaked havoc on Rabaul and Japanese shipping in the SW Pacific. Attacks at wave height bouncing bombers into cruisers, destroyers, transports, tankers and even submarines was extremely disruptive and successful. This was accomplished by the Twelfth AF and the Fifth AF. B-24's were even used for this mission type: air interdiction. The bases were at Port Moresby, Milne Bay and Guadalcanal. As the Navy moved north in the Solomon's, the bases go close to Rabaul and Truk. They eventually were used against the Japanese on the Philippines and then moving up to the Marianna's and Iwo Jima finally being used against the Japanese home island. Armed reconnaissance, interdiction and close air support was used by Allied forces all around the world including the Pacific, Mediterranean and of course, Europe. Here is a link to the history of the Army Air Forces - The game should enhance this aspect of air warfare as it was and is very useful. www.afhistory.af.mil/FAQs/Fact-Sheets/Article/458967/the-u-s-army-air-forces-in-world-war-ii/ |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 19, 2020 9:06:37 GMT -6
Here is my suggested configuration for a fighter in the game, for fighter-bomber missions.  |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 19, 2020 9:20:25 GMT -6
Here is my suggested configuration for a fighter in the game, for fighter-bomber missions. View AttachmentJust so you're aware, firepower mostly affects air-to-air combat in the game and doesn't impact bomb load. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 19, 2020 9:31:21 GMT -6
Here is my suggested configuration for a fighter in the game, for fighter-bomber missions. View AttachmentJust so you're aware, firepower mostly affects air-to-air combat in the game and doesn't impact bomb load. Ok, but the air to air combat firepower should be the same as the air to ground. You could attach larger cannons to the wings and use them, it was done, but I don't think the game is that far along. Firepower or something close is the best characteristics along with ruggedness for fighter-bombers. |
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Oct 19, 2020 10:08:43 GMT -6
I can't give specifics on effectiveness - I will say that a jack of all trades is king of none, and refer you to what Aeson wrote. Except that many of the characteristics that make a good fighter also make a good attack plane. Maneuverability and load carrying ability, for example, both depend on the ability to generate a lot of lift. Many world class fighters have also been world class attack planes. The same goes for carrier fighters: an average naval fighter might not be much good as a land based fighter, but the characteristics that make a plane excel as a carrier fighter make it an excellent land based fighter as well, and most of the really legendary carrier fighters have seen significant non-naval use (Corsair, Phantom, Tomcat, Hornet). Some what agree - at least for WWII and to a degree the Korean War. My comments were in regards to the game, in which I had noted that late game I almost always go heavy multi-role fighter with a smattering of other types for "role-playing" utilize country advantages. Like Italy with the torpedoes with run patterns. The game is setup to give preferential treatment to DB for hit accuracy on some targets per Williamiller and I would thus consider DB to be the king of bombing due to that advantage. I also noted, that I thought multi-role fighters were better from a sortie standpoint - I think their speed allows them to run an extra mission every day.
In real life, I've read a lot of reports from Korea and Vietnam in which the ground troops preferred close air support from the slower prop-driven planes. The props tended to be much more accurate with their ordnance and they had longer on station time than the faster air-superiority trained fighters. Ground troops loved the A-1 Skyraider over the F-4 Phantoms for example. The USN Proceedings magazine in the 1990s more than a few op-eds noting that the Marines really should be looking at props again for close air support due to the disastrous showing of the F-16s during Desert Storm which were slated to replace the A-10s. They saw a strong need for a slow, heavily armed and durable aircraft to provide close air support for hours. They are still making that argument, as of 2017 - www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2017/05/03/back-to-the-future-why-the-u-s-needs-a-light-turboprop-attack-aircraft/#37816727267d.
Vietnam showed the value of dedicated attack aircraft like the A-6's attack on the Uong Bi powerplant.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 19, 2020 10:25:00 GMT -6
Just so you're aware, firepower mostly affects air-to-air combat in the game and doesn't impact bomb load. Ok, but the air to air combat firepower should be the same as the air to ground. You could attach larger cannons to the wings and use them, it was done, but I don't think the game is that far along. Firepower or something close is the best characteristics along with ruggedness for fighter-bombers. Almost none of the surface targets available in the game can be easily damaged by light weapons like fighter cannons - the typical ground target is a fortified gun emplacement with overhead protection or an airfield while the typical sea targets are warships armored against at least 5" or 6" guns. It doesn't much matter whether your fighter has two 0.30-cal machine guns, six or eight 0.50-cal machine guns, or four 20mm cannon, it's not a significant threat to an armored target like a cruiser or a fortified gun position with overhead protection. Even most of the unarmored targets available in the game aren't really threatened that much by bullets and small-caliber shells - strafing doesn't render runways unusable for any significant period of time after the fighters leave, and even relatively small unarmored ships like destroyers or merchantmen are going to be highly resistant to being sunk by machine-gun or low-caliber cannon fire just by virtue of their size. The only significant value to strafing surface targets within the game is suppression of AAA - and at that mostly the unprotected light and medium AAA instead of the typically-armored heavy AAA; you need bombs or torpedoes to actually sink ships, render airfields unusable, or destroy fortified coastal gun emplacements.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 19, 2020 11:30:00 GMT -6
Ok, but the air to air combat firepower should be the same as the air to ground. You could attach larger cannons to the wings and use them, it was done, but I don't think the game is that far along. Firepower or something close is the best characteristics along with ruggedness for fighter-bombers. Almost none of the surface targets available in the game can be easily damaged by light weapons like fighter cannons - the typical ground target is a fortified gun emplacement with overhead protection or an airfield while the typical sea targets are warships armored against at least 5" or 6" guns. It doesn't much matter whether your fighter has two 0.30-cal machine guns, six or eight 0.50-cal machine guns, or four 20mm cannon, it's not a significant threat to an armored target like a cruiser or a fortified gun position with overhead protection. Even most of the unarmored targets available in the game aren't really threatened that much by bullets and small-caliber shells - strafing doesn't render runways unusable for any significant period of time after the fighters leave, and even relatively small unarmored ships like destroyers or merchantmen are going to be highly resistant to being sunk by machine-gun or low-caliber cannon fire just by virtue of their size. The only significant value to strafing surface targets within the game is suppression of AAA - and at that mostly the unprotected light and medium AAA instead of the typically-armored heavy AAA; you need bombs or torpedoes to actually sink ships, render airfields unusable, or destroy fortified coastal gun emplacements.
The use of fighter-bombers was extensive in SEAD or suppression of enemy air defenses. FB would fly across the enemy ships and with their MG's and Cannons, suppress the fire from the open light or even medium machine guns and cannons like the Japanese 25mm guns. It was done prior to dive bombers and torpedo bomber attacks and was very effective. Much of the superstructure on the ships like destroyers and light cruisers was vulnerable to .50 cal. machine guns and 20mm cannons. Clearing the decks like this is very effective making a ship incapable of performing its mission. I hope the game does or will reflect this evolution of air warfare against naval vessels. |
|
