WaS Opening Salvo Pt. 3 - Airplanes

[WotC Bob]

This is the discussion thread for Part 3 of our War at Sea Opening Salv0 Series: the F4F Wildcat and the A6M2 Zeke (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/aam/ah20070212c).

[Arontje]

This is the discussion thread for Part 3 of our War at Sea Opening Salv0 Series: the F4F Wildcat and the A6M2 Zeke (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/aam/ah20070212c).


Looks nice, i wonder what everyone thinks of it.

[FlyingDutchman]

Can someone explain to me why the Wildcat (which, also to the preview, was a greatly superior fighter) apparantly has worse stats? It looks (just like in AA Minis) that WotC simply cannot accept that something made by an erstwhile opponent was better than the American equivalent... Hostorically, the best text would probably be - if adjacent to Zero, roll die; if less then 4 it is destroyed...

I do not know the rules so I would hope that someone proves me wrong and that the Zero will not (just is in AA Minis) become totally unplayable...:confused:

[Der Leiter]

Can someone explain to me why the Wildcat (which, also to the preview, was a greatly superior fighter) apparantly has worse stats?[/URL]

Dou you mean the Zero? They both have very similar stats; for 1 poin the Wildcat has +1 gunnery and +1 vital armour; but the actual difference between 8 and 9 vital armour on an aircraft is very little.

[QUOTE=FlyingDutchman;228954] It looks (just like in AA Minis) that WotC simply cannot accept that something made by an erstwhile opponent was better than the American equivalent...

It makes sense to me that the Wildcat would be harder to destroy because.. well it was. Both have the same basic firepower, though the Wildcat can always get the +1 bonus. However the Zeros aren't limited by having to be a carrier for their surprise attack, so can make quite effective use of it.

Hostorically, the best text would probably be - if adjacent to Zero, roll die; if less then 4 it is destroyed...

I do not know the rules so I would hope that someone proves me wrong and that the Zero will not (just is in AA Minis) become totally unplayable...:confused:

I don't think that's correct at all, especially with the tactics soon employed by the US. In any event, AANM's Zero is a great fighter.

[Belisarius]

Wasn't Butch O'Hare's father associated with the Chicago Mob (not a member, but received bribes from Capone & Co.)?

(Incidentally, his nickname was "Butch," not "Buck.")

[Flyboy]

One question, are the wildcats painted green or blue? Because I know that most, if not all, of them were blue. Just curious;)

[Thunderjp]

I would guess that the difference between the 2 attack of the zero and 3 of the Wildcat is probably HUGE. A 50% increase in attack power and 11% increase in armor at a point cost of only 15% seems pretty one-sided. From the looks of it, I'd guess their unique special abilities are similar in 'power.'

[horacus]

Well, it looks interesting. The Wildcat is, well, considerably better, for 1 point.

[Belisarius]

I would guess that the difference between the 2 attack of the zero and 3 of the Wildcat is probably HUGE. A 50% increase in attack power and 11% increase in armor at a point cost of only 15% seems pretty one-sided. From the looks of it, I'd guess their unique special abilities are similar in 'power.'

Except that those values (2 for the Zeke and 3 for the Wildcat) are against surface ships. Their antiair stats (minus special abilities) are identical. I'd imagine that they will be used in the antiair capacity more often than in an anti-shipping role. If you're going to rely on aircraft to sink ships, I'd suggest going with bombers.

[WotC Bob]

One question, are the wildcats painted green or blue? Because I know that most, if not all, of them were blue. Just curious;)


They are blue

[Flyboy]

Thanks for clearing that up for me Bob:)

[Sean-Khan]

Very cool preview, with lots of new info :D Looks really promising!

Land base, cancelling attacks vs. being destroyed with vital armor...

Yup, attack 3 is probably a lot better than 2, but fighters are mainly to be used against other fighters. And, zeke's get that attack 3 during the first turn too! And, I'm wondering how often hits are made that make to vital armor...

[Thunderjp]

Except that those values (2 for the Zeke and 3 for the Wildcat) are against surface ships. Their antiair stats (minus special abilities) are identical. I'd imagine that they will be used in the antiair capacity more often than in an anti-shipping role. If you're going to rely on aircraft to sink ships, I'd suggest going with bombers.

Great point. Not sure what I was thinking when I quickly responded.

On the other hand, the versatility of the Wildcat is still probably well worth paying 1 point for. Without knowing the rules and all unit stats, I'd guess either the zero is over-costed by a point or the Wildcat is under-costed a point based on this versatility factor.

[MarcusAurelius]

Thank you for another well-done Opening Salvo. I've read the entire article twice already, and I'll reread it at least once more to see what other information can be picked up.

It's interesting to learn more about how aircraft will work in War at Sea. (Guess we'll have to wait a while for the scoop on submarines.)

Looks like fighters will be a lot more versatile than I thought. My first impression was that they would be largely limited to an escort/anti-aircraft role. While a squadron of Wildcats won't pose a threat to capital ships, it sounds like they will be effective against smaller vessels like torpedo boats and destroyers. If I'm reading the quick start rules correctly, aircraft will essentially get 2 attacks: one against other planes in the Antiair phase, and a second against ships and submarines in the Air Atack phase.

Aircraft also seem to be pretty cost-effective — which should make for some interesting decisions when it comes to force selection. Do you choose 2 Wildcats to provide air cover for your fleet, or save a couple points and go with the Atlanta? My guess is that fielding a carrier force with a complement of fighters, dive bombers and torpedo bombers will come in at right about 50 points or less.

As for the miniatures, I'll reserve final judgment until I can see them for myself — but they look pretty good from these photos.

[Der Leiter]

Great point. Not sure what I was thinking when I quickly responded.

On the other hand, the versatility of the Wildcat is still probably well worth paying 1 point for. Without knowing the rules and all unit stats, I'd guess either the zero is over-costed by a point or the Wildcat is under-costed a point based on this versatility factor.

Well remember it's not like you can choose between them; one is for the Axis and one is for the Allies. It's quite likely that another factor (well, two) will offset this...

[shadowhooch]

Vital Armour and Hull Points must work differently for planes.

With a Hull Value of only 1...having Vital Armour seems a bit silly since any hit would destroy the plane.
It must be part of the "deterring air attack" rules we must be getting later eh?

[Jaels]

Vital Armour and Hull Points must work differently for planes.

With a Hull Value of only 1...having Vital Armour seems a bit silly since any hit would destroy the plane.
It must be part of the "deterring air attack" rules we must be getting later eh?

They talk about this in the Basic Rules (already available on this website).

When shooting at planes, if you get enough hits to equal or beat the Armor but not equal the Vital Armor, the plane gets an "Attack Disrupted" token. A plane with this token can still fire at other planes, but will not be able to make a sea attack in the last aircraft phase. So in this game you can actually stop bomber attack runs with an interceptor, something you couldn't do in the land version!

Equalling or beating the Vital Armor destroys the plane (although with A&A rules it probably will still be able to attack other planes before exploding).

One interesting point in the article is about the planes deployment rules. It seems to indicate the number of planes will be important, foreshadowing an alternate deployment rule for planes.

[MarcusAurelius]

Equalling or beating the Vital Armor destroys the plane (although with A&A rules it probably will still be able to attack other planes before exploding).

I think you're right. The way I read the quick start rules, destroyed aircraft will still get their Antiair attack during the Air Defense phase.

"An Antiair attack must get successes equal to or greater than that Aircraft's vital armor rating to destroy it. If this happens, place a face-up Destroyed counter beside the affected unit. Apply the effects of Destroyed or Aborted counters at the end of the Air Defense phase."

In other words, Antiair attacks take place before the end of the Air Defense phase — when the effects of a Destroyed counter are applied.

[unc_samurai]

Is a fighter's armor value designed to incorporate maneuverability <i>and</i> physical armor? If so, I can understand an aircraft lacking self-sealing fuel tanks getting only one less point of armor than the F4F, an airframe noted for durability.

Also, how does quality of pilot factor into aircraft? Later in the war, American pilots get better in tandem with their aircraft, while Japanese pilots on average were not adequately trained. An A6M8 is a match for an F6F-3 when the pilots are about equal, but your average IJN pilot in 1944 was not a match for the average USN pilot.

[Bellerophon]

I think that two attacks per turn by aircraft is unrealistic. If an aircraft is making an anti-air attack that turn, due to being on CAP, then the aircraft would certainly not have time, or range, to make an attack against an enemy ship (unless the ship was at REALLY short range.)

[Autarch]

Very interesting. I'm surprised fighters would be allowed to mix it up air to air and then hit the deck to do strafing runs instead of continuing to hound enemy fighters/bombers. Have to see the rules to see how this works.

[shousa]

Very interesting. I'm surprised fighters would be allowed to mix it up air to air and then hit the deck to do strafing runs instead of continuing to hound enemy fighters/bombers. Have to see the rules to see how this works.

Well, for bombers/torpedo bombers I'm assuming that this accounts for the tailgunner/turrets blazing away while the pilot lines up the anti-ship attack. For fighters, though I'm not sure. On the other hand, I would be frustrated if fighters were completely denied anti-ship attacks because then we wouldn't be able to re-enact Wake Island. What? I think it'd be fun to take on 50 points or more worth of destroyers and cruisers with 7-14 points of aircraft.

[Richter von Manthofen]

While the abilities of both planes seem OK to me (by the known rules) - I have a slight costing problem (again - sigh) - but its more like the difference between a Mauser and a Garand (I prefer the Garand) or the Garand and the Veteran Wehrmacht (I prefer the Wehrmacht) :D than Panzer IV and Sherman, so thats a minor matter and in the low point range its often not possible to cost correctly as fractional points are not invented (except the Baby Wire).

[XAos]

Is a fighter's armor value designed to incorporate maneuverability <i>and</i> physical armor? If so, I can understand an aircraft lacking self-sealing fuel tanks getting only one less point of armor than the F4F, an airframe noted for durability.

The difference between 8 & 9 vital armour for aircraft is very significant. It looks like a 12% improvement in defense. But the odds in rolling a vital hit are more than doubled. If the game starts with 3 Zekes V's 2 Wildcats, after a while all the Zekes will be destroyed. The Zekes would need above average luck to take more than 1 Wildcat with them. And that was 18 points of Zekes V's 14 points of Wildcats.

Except that those values (2 for the Zeke and 3 for the Wildcat) are against surface ships. Their antiair stats (minus special abilities) are identical. I'd imagine that they will be used in the antiair capacity more often than in an anti-shipping role. If you're going to rely on aircraft to sink ships, I'd suggest going with bombers.
True, the bombers should be the primary anti-ship units.
It looks as if Wildcats will add one more chance of a hit while they are escourting those bombers.
That chance is fairly small against a defense-4 cruiser (13%)
But might be significant against destroyers or MTB's ???

[MarcusAurelius]

I think that two attacks per turn by aircraft is unrealistic. If an aircraft is making an anti-air attack that turn, due to being on CAP, then the aircraft would certainly not have time, or range, to make an attack against an enemy ship (unless the ship was at REALLY short range.)

From the standpoint of what's realistic or not, a lot can happen in a 10-minute turn. A fighter flying at 300mph will travel more than 50 miles during that time. Also, I'm not sure how often aircraft will actually get both an Antiair attack and an Air Attack.

Say a Zero and 2 Val dive bombers are attacking the Enterprise escorted by the Atlanta and a Wildcat.

During the Air Defense phase, the Zero and Vals must survive a total of 4 Antiair attacks — 1 at 8 from the Enterprise, 1 at 9 from the Wildcat (thanks to Expert Dogfighter and Defend the Flattop) and 2 at 8 from the Atlanta. Chances are pretty good that all the attacks against the ships will be aborted. Even if you take away the Atlanta from this scenario, much of the time only one Japanese squadron will get through to make a surface attack.

Of course, I don't know the stats for a Val or other bombers — and I don't want to jump to any conclusions without some playtesting. But this sounds and feels about right to me.

[mikoyan]

Wasn't Butch O'Hare's father associated with the Chicago Mob (not a member, but received bribes from Capone & Co.)?

(Incidentally, his nickname was "Butch," not "Buck.")
What does this have to do with the minis?

but at any rate, Butch O'Hare's dad was an accountant for the mob and gave the information to the Feds so that they could prosecute Capone on the tax angle.

[Joisey]

I have no problem with the look of the planes. I think they are well done for what they are, at the scale they are. Most pleasing to me is that they are appropriately painted and have insignia. An unexpected bonus is the attention paid to the differences in the wing shape of the Zero (oval) to the Wildcat (squared off wingtip), oh, and that you got it right too. ;)

The SA's for the plane appear to me to be thoughtful, and to provide thought provoking gameplay. As I do not know the amount of "real time" represented by each game turn, I'm reserving any criticism of how realistic it is for planes to engage in both air to air combat and air to surface attacks on the same turn. My suspicion is that, from a game design mechanics point of view, it would be necessary to do this in any event.

A Plea To Bob: Please scrap your stock, over lit, side profile photos for the rest of the preview series and take some 3D perspective shots of your own.

[Belisarius]

What does this have to do with the minis?

but at any rate, Butch O'Hare's dad was an accountant for the mob and gave the information to the Feds so that they could prosecute Capone on the tax angle.

Absolutely nothing. Just came to mind since he was mentioned in the Opening Salvo.

[ayeblackbart]

Wasn't Butch O'Hare's father associated with the Chicago Mob (not a member, but received bribes from Capone & Co.)?

(Incidentally, his nickname was "Butch," not "Buck.")

Yes he was and he wanted his son not to follow in his footsteps.

[mikoyan]

http://www.snopes.com/glurge/ohare.asp

Sorry, I had the wrong profession. He was an attorney, but he did end up helping the Government's case against Capone.

but back to the minis, these look nice although not quite as detailed as the ground version but still pretty nice the same. On paper, the two fighters look about the same and I think that's about right. The Zero was more maneuverable and faster than the Wildcat but was a little more vulnerable and had a lower calibre gun.

[Autarch]

I have no problem with the look of the planes. I think they are well done for what they are, at the scale they are. Most pleasing to me is that they are appropriately painted and have insignia. An unexpected bonus is the attention paid to the differences in the wing shape of the Zero (oval) to the Wildcat (squared off wingtip), oh, and that you got it right too. ;)

I noticed that, too. They also got the F4Fs leaf shape horizontal stabilizers correct as well. Now just need to cut off those idle props...


The SA's for the plane appear to me to be thoughtful, and to provide thought provoking gameplay.

Just to throw something out there, for historic/realism for the F4F is an SA: INEXPERIENCED before June 4 1942, a 6 on each AntiAir dice counts as only one hit. This would reflect lack of experience/tactics. The Zeke would have the same SA in effect after June 7 1942.

Wow, did I just come up with the first house rule? lol

A Plea To Bob: Please scrap your stock, over lit, side profile photos for the rest of the preview series and take some 3D perspective shots of your own.

Ditto

[swarbs]

I know I'm a new kid here, just found the forum today but I've got an issue. This opening salvo several times makes mention of how hard it is to shoot down either of these fighters. It seems like even the Atlanta may have a hard time preventing a strafing attack by a zero, let alone destroying it. How is this realistic? A zero or wildcat making a strafing run could not have been that hard to hit, certainly zeros outfitted as kamikazes were often downed historically. The only reason they weren't dropped by AA more often is that they were engaged air to air, instead of strafing (with the exceptions I guess of attacks on the Tokyo express from Henderson Field and of the last ditch defense of the escort carriers from Japanese heavy units during the invasion of the Philipeans). In the game itself, it seems like sending a fighter aircraft against a ship is a no lose situation, even if you don't hurt it, who cares, it won't shoot you down. No one else thinks that is weird?

[Der Leiter]

I know I'm a new kid here, just found the forum today but I've got an issue. This opening salvo several times makes mention of how hard it is to shoot down either of these fighters. It seems like even the Atlanta may have a hard time preventing a strafing attack by a zero, let alone destroying it. How is this realistic? A zero or wildcat making a strafing run could not have been that hard to hit, certainly zeros outfitted as kamikazes were often downed historically. The only reason they weren't dropped by AA more often is that they were engaged air to air, instead of strafing (with the exceptions I guess of attacks on the Tokyo express from Henderson Field and of the last ditch defense of the escort carriers from Japanese heavy units during the invasion of the Philipeans). In the game itself, it seems like sending a fighter aircraft against a ship is a no lose situation, even if you don't hurt it, who cares, it won't shoot you down. No one else thinks that is weird?

Remember they don't represent just one or even three planes; consider how many aircraft the USS Enterprise would have and that it is only given a capacity of 3. While it's unlikely the fighters will be shot down, it's nowhere near impossible. It's also much easier to simply prevent them from attacking the ship.

[Belisarius]

I know I'm a new kid here, just found the forum today but I've got an issue. This opening salvo several times makes mention of how hard it is to shoot down either of these fighters. It seems like even the Atlanta may have a hard time preventing a strafing attack by a zero, let alone destroying it. How is this realistic? A zero or wildcat making a strafing run could not have been that hard to hit, certainly zeros outfitted as kamikazes were often downed historically. The only reason they weren't dropped by AA more often is that they were engaged air to air, instead of strafing (with the exceptions I guess of attacks on the Tokyo express from Henderson Field and of the last ditch defense of the escort carriers from Japanese heavy units during the invasion of the Philipeans). In the game itself, it seems like sending a fighter aircraft against a ship is a no lose situation, even if you don't hurt it, who cares, it won't shoot you down. No one else thinks that is weird?


Not so weird, no. In addition to Der Leiter's comments, remember that even if on a strafing run, these planes are relatively small and moving very fast. Harder to hit than you might imagine. The most effective antiair weapons (regardless of nation) were friendly fighters.

For example, look at the sinking of the Bismarck. Because the German fire control systems weren't equipped to deal with aircraft flying as slowly as the Swordfish, the Germans weren't able to shoot down any of them. Lilkewise, the Prince of Wales and Repulse and their escorting ships weren't all that successful in shooting down attacking Japanese aircraft. Neither was the Yamato (versus U.S. planes, of course). And remember, a significant number of kamikazes did hit their targets, despite antiaircraft fire.

My guess is that you won't see fighters sent to attack large capital ships (cruisers and battleships), not because of their effective antiair abilities, but because the fighters just won't do enough damage to make it worthwhile. After all, you're not going to sink a battlewagon with .50 caliber fire....

[MarcusAurelius]

I know I'm a new kid here, just found the forum today but I've got an issue. This opening salvo several times makes mention of how hard it is to shoot down either of these fighters. It seems like even the Atlanta may have a hard time preventing a strafing attack by a zero, let alone destroying it. How is this realistic? A zero or wildcat making a strafing run could not have been that hard to hit, certainly zeros outfitted as kamikazes were often downed historically. The only reason they weren't dropped by AA more often is that they were engaged air to air, instead of strafing (with the exceptions I guess of attacks on the Tokyo express from Henderson Field and of the last ditch defense of the escort carriers from Japanese heavy units during the invasion of the Philipeans). In the game itself, it seems like sending a fighter aircraft against a ship is a no lose situation, even if you don't hurt it, who cares, it won't shoot you down. No one else thinks that is weird?

A Zero fighter attacking the Atlanta will have to overcome an Antiair defense of 8 to make a strafing run. The Atlanta should average 5.333 hits against the Zero's armor of 6. This means that the Zero will only be able to use its main guns about 3 out of every 5 attacks. (Someone else can check my math and figure out the exact percentage.)

The chance of the Atlanta getting at least 8 hits in 8 dice — enough to overcome the Zero's vital armor and put it out of action for good — is approximately 10%.

Even if the Zero gets through, it needs double sixes to overcome the cruiser's armor of 4. That's a 1 in 36 chance, or just 2.8%.

I think the Atlanta holds its own pretty well in that matchup. It's got a decent chance to fend off or even destroy the Zero — while the Japanese fighter poses little threat in return.

[unc_samurai]

Remember they don't represent just one or even three planes; consider how many aircraft the USS Enterprise would have and that it is only given a capacity of 3. While it's unlikely the fighters will be shot down, it's nowhere near impossible. It's also much easier to simply prevent them from attacking the ship.

Your typical carrier complement during the war (once search radar replaced the VS squadrons dedicated to scouting) outfitted three squadrons. The VF (fighter) and VB (level and dive bombing) squadrons fielded approximately 36 planes each. The VT (torpedo bombing) squadron would only enlist 18 aircraft. This rounds optimum combat capacity at 90 planes. An Essex-class carrier had a maximum storage capacity of 100 planes. I'm not 100% certain as to whether Task Force support ships carried replacement airframes, but I would expect that fleet carriers would operate at about 80%-90% of optimum capacity during an extended operation. Given how long the major CVs stayed on station during island invasions, it's likely that of the 36 fighters in a squadron, they were likely operating 32 on a consistent basis.

An escort carrier of the Bogue class or the Casablanca class carried about two dozen aircraft, fielding a fighter squadron of 12. These light carriers typically carried Wildcats while the newer Hellcats and Corsairs were earmarked for the heavy flattops.

In summary, a fighter squadron represents a nebulous number between 12 and 36, because I expect a fighter squadron in the War at Sea game is the same whether it's on an Essex carrier or an escort carrier.

[swarbs]

I guess I'm beginning to wrap my head around this, it makes much more sense that a ship would not shoot down an entire squadron of aircraft at once (though the South Dakota with the Atlanta's help made a good try of it near Guadalcanal) and it would make the rules far more complicated to account for partial squadrons etc. Thanks for the replies.

It still seems like the Wildcat has a pretty good chance to take out a Japanese destroyer, or any destroyer, I don't think the Germans were famed for their anti-aircraft fire either, which still seems like a stretch.

[Sean-Khan]

It still seems like the Wildcat has a pretty good chance to take out a Japanese destroyer, or any destroyer, I don't think the Germans were famed for their anti-aircraft fire either, which still seems like a stretch.

Er, do we have stats of any destroyer yet? Their small size & agility compared to larger ships may increase their defence; If they are something like Armor 3, Vital Armor 6, Hull Points 2, they really wouldn't be fighter -food. Or, maybe Armor 2, Hull 3 - fighters can damage them but destroying takes more effort.

[unc_samurai]

I guess I'm beginning to wrap my head around this, it makes much more sense that a ship would not shoot down an entire squadron of aircraft at once (though the South Dakota with the Atlanta's help made a good try of it near Guadalcanal) and it would make the rules far more complicated to account for partial squadrons etc.

Aircraft squadrons and ships have a different casualty threshold. Squadrons, like infantry units, have to worry about unit cohesion. Instances such as the Hornet's torpedo squadron suffering 100% casualties during the battle of Midway are rare. Naval vessels typically can't make quick decisions to withdraw in the midst of an engagement.

[swarbs]

Er, do we have stats of any destroyer yet? Their small size & agility compared to larger ships may increase their defence; If they are something like Armor 3, Vital Armor 6, Hull Points 2, they really wouldn't be fighter -food. Or, maybe Armor 2, Hull 3 - fighters can damage them but destroying takes more effort.

I guess no official destroyer stats yet, but I figured that since the Opening Salvo seemed to say the wildcat had a decent chance of damaging a destroyer I based my remark on that. If the Atlanta had only a Hull 3, I would also guess that most destroyers would be Hull 2, meaning one hull damage should "Cripple" the ship according to the quick start rules. That seems to suggest that destroyers would be vulnerable to fighter attack in the game. Looking at it again though, this is not a bad set-up, surely a lone destroyer would have been at least vulnerable to an entire squadron of fighters.

[Sean-Khan]

Hm, how did it really go in ww2, did fighters without bombs have decent chance of doing severe damage to destroyers? I have no idea!

Destroyers might well have 3 hull points - if Vital armor is low enough, it would make enough difference to cruisers.

Of course, decent is relative :) There's a decent chance of getting 3 successes with 3 dice, as 6's count double.

[Stealth]

Hm, how did it really go in ww2, did fighters without bombs have decent chance of doing severe damage to destroyers? I have no idea!

Destroyers might well have 3 hull points - if Vital armor is low enough, it would make enough difference to cruisers.

Of course, decent is relative :) There's a decent chance of getting 3 successes with 3 dice, as 6's count double.

Fighters w/o bombs could have a decent chance of doing damage to a DD. Destroyers, had no armor (outside the structure) so heavy calibre MG fire would pierce the hull, causing casualities, misc structural damage, but primarily damage to the boilers, tubes, and machinery spaces in the aft hull. A bit of luck and you could sink one, though I don't know if that occurred with just fighter attacks w/o bombs.

[XAos]

A Zero fighter attacking the Atlanta will have to overcome an Antiair defense of 8 to make a strafing run. The Atlanta should average 5.333 hits against the Zero's armor of 6. This means that the Zero will only be able to use its main guns about 3 out of every 5 attacks. (Someone else can check my math and figure out the exact percentage.)

Exact odds are;
Zeke destroyed = 15%
Zeke aborts = 30%
Which is a total of 45% (per shot by the Atlanta) So it's closer to 1 out of 2. But Atlanta is one of the best AA ships in the war. As preview-3 said, The fighter "escourt" ability means that a typical attack force will be 3 bombers & 1 fighter. So I'd expect AA fire will to be concentrated on the 3-bombers (would you prefer to abort a Wildcat or a Dauntless). Which would leave a Zeke to use a feeble strength-2 attack or a Wildcat to use a slightly better strength-3 attack.

As for fighters sinking destroyers;
They certainly sank small craft (MTB's) with just MG fire. e.g. Enterprise fighters sank several patrol craft during the Dolittle raid on Tokyo.
Fighters also sank Destroyers (e.g. Wake Island), but might have used bombs for those targets.

[Joisey]

Hm, how did it really go in ww2, did fighters without bombs have decent chance of doing severe damage to destroyers? I have no idea!

Destroyers might well have 3 hull points - if Vital armor is low enough, it would make enough difference to cruisers.

Of course, decent is relative :) There's a decent chance of getting 3 successes with 3 dice, as 6's count double.


While rare, it could happen. I recall that it was confirmed that ONE Plane of the Tuskegee Airmen, a fighter, destroyed an Italian destroyer on a strafing run.

[Bellerophon]

I guess no official destroyer stats yet, but I figured that since the Opening Salvo seemed to say the wildcat had a decent chance of damaging a destroyer I based my remark on that. If the Atlanta had only a Hull 3, I would also guess that most destroyers would be Hull 2, meaning one hull damage should "Cripple" the ship according to the quick start rules. That seems to suggest that destroyers would be vulnerable to fighter attack in the game. Looking at it again though, this is not a bad set-up, surely a lone destroyer would have been at least vulnerable to an entire squadron of fighters.
Also, remember that in fleet actions, one of the main jobs of destroyers was to provide additional AA cover to capital ships. Usually there was a flotilla of 1-3 destroyers assigned to each capital ship to provide close-in AA, anti-sub and anti-torpedo support. Destroyers had the highest machine-gun and 20mm AA gun density by hull size of any ship in WWII (with the possible exception of the PT-boat.) Destoyers frequently concentrated their firepower with sister ships in their flotilla to knock down incoming 'waves' of enemy aircraft.

Destroyers were also relatively cheap and expendable as regards to captial ships, and deployed in far greater numbers. Even if the destroyer has a Hull value of 1, this would not be unrealistic since destoyers were VERY lightly armored.

So, I guess my feeling would be that 'Yes' a lone destroyer might be vulnerable to aircraft attacks but with the way that scenarios will probably play out, a destroyer will rarely be alone.

[Bellerophon]

Exact odds are;
Zeke destroyed = 15%
Zeke aborts = 30%
Which is a total of 45% (per shot by the Atlanta) So it's closer to 1 out of 2. But Atlanta is one of the best AA ships in the war. As preview-3 said, The fighter "escourt" ability means that a typical attack force will be 3 bombers & 1 fighter. So I'd expect AA fire will to be concentrated on the 3-bombers (would you prefer to abort a Wildcat or a Dauntless). Which would leave a Zeke to use a feeble strength-2 attack or a Wildcat to use a slightly better strength-3 attack.

As for fighters sinking destroyers;
They certainly sank small craft (MTB's) with just MG fire. e.g. Enterprise fighters sank several patrol craft during the Dolittle raid on Tokyo.
Fighters also sank Destroyers (e.g. Wake Island), but might have used bombs for those targets.
Remember that bombing ships was still a pretty tricky thing to do. Entire squadrons of dive bombers rarely scored more than a few hits, and those were usually against BIG, relatively slow capital ships like carriers and battleships. A destroyer was a MUCH smaller target, more agile and, lets face it, less of priority target than a flattop, BB or heavy cruiser.

[Stealth]

Remember that bombing ships was still a pretty tricky thing to do. Entire squadrons of dive bombers rarely scored more than a few hits, and those were usually against BIG, relatively slow capital ships like carriers and battleships. A destroyer was a MUCH smaller target, more agile and, lets face it, less of priority target than a flattop, BB or heavy cruiser.

All true. But then , all that was needed to sink a tin can was to get a relatively close hit, this would generally open the seams of it and the sea did the rest. But on second thought, this only applied to larger bombs 500 lbs +.

[Photoner Hawkwind]

Wasn't Butch O'Hare's father associated with the Chicago Mob (not a member, but received bribes from Capone & Co.)?

(Incidentally, his nickname was "Butch," not "Buck.")

According to the History channel.

[Bellerophon]

All true. But then , all that was needed to sink a tin can was to get a relatively close hit, this would generally open the seams of it and the sea did the rest. But on second thought, this only applied to larger bombs 500 lbs +.
Which was the destroyer's job...taking the hit for the larger ships. Destroyers got in the way of torpedoes and other ordinance on purpose to keep critical ships from being damaged or destroyed.

You've got to hand it to the destroyer crews...They knew that the job was frequently to take it on the chin for their sister ships...