Air Support - Scheduled Strikes No AA

[AJ at the Bank]

May I please ask why the p16 rule on Scheduled Strikes not subject to AA fire?

Bombers and Ground-Attack Air units in Requested Air Cover may be subject to enemy AA fire .....why same units not subject to AA when Scheduled please (particularly with auto target hit in Scheduled) ?

Must be something to do with game balance I guess? Were people seeing Air as too ineffective due to AA fire?

Thanks
Adam

[fred.]

We were surprised at this too. Seems an odd exception

[Dr Dave]

I think it's a error / typo. The notion that the enemy wont shoot at certain planes because he knows how they arrived over the front is a bit... well...   

[Big Insect]

OK folks - please do not automatically assume it is an error 

There is an issue here around Strategic Bombing and AA.
This came up with the play-testing and got batted around all over the place, both for and against with good arguments by both sides.

Just how high up is that Flying Fortress flying when it drops it's bombs? !!!
Does a small battle group have large caliber AA support to fend off even a medium altitude attack? 

Have a mull ...

[Dr Dave]

Good point, I was assuming GA like 109s and Stukas, not He111.

Only dedicated AA units (not HQs etc) can engage "bombers"? And then they have to be > 25mm (?) - gives Jerry a reason for the 37mm and the Brits etc to have Bofors?

An 88 in game terms is NOT an AA system - wrong sights, wrong ammo... 88's in AA role are for shooting at B17s and Halifaxs - which are NOT in the game.

my 2p

[fred.]

In our game it was Stukas that as scheduled couldn't be shot at,  but when called in could be shot at.

I get the point about bombers. And perhaps that is the difference. Scheduled bombers either can't be shot at, or only by dedicated AA.

[Dr Dave]

It's more the altitude as opposed to when or how they arrive. GA is low, bombers are high.

If HQ AA is units MGs then I'd ignore it vs bombers. Even 20 mm fire won't be much use above a few thousand feet.

[AJ at the Bank]

There is an issue here around Strategic Bombing and AA.


Interesting debate perhaps on the difference with firing AA at Strategic bombing rather than non-Strategic bombing ....however ....


The current rule As Is doesn't seem to make any sense ...that the same AA units can fire at Requested enemy aircraft - but they cannot fire at the same aircraft (inc. AIR:GA) when they are flying in the Scheduled Phase.

IMO - Either scrap this rule ...or if its something to do with AIR:BM ...come up with something not too detailed that makes a distinction between AA impacting AIR:GA and AIR:BM.
Persoanlly I like Dr Dave's idea about only being able to fire at AIR:BM with ART:AA units - although acknowledging that this does make AIR:BM units tougher.

A

[Big Insect]

Again - the same bombers can fly at different heights and in different tactical roles. Adding extra complexity around which aircraft can and cannot fly Scheduled Missions and which AA calibres can or cannot shoot at strategic bombing runs - is also to be avoided.

The rule is that air attacks in the Scheduled Phase are not subject to AA, for a good reason.

Again, if you want to create your own house rule Adam, by all means please do so.

many thanks

Mark

[AJ at the Bank]

Thanks Mark

That's what I am trying to understand - what's the 'good reason'.
E.g. Good reason why AIR:GA cant be shot at in Scheduled?

I genuinely too thought it must be an error - sorry

[Big Insect]

This is because it was felt that they were considered to be flying too high for most AA guns on table.

They are, however, subject to standard Air Superiority attacks - which also includes AA fire as well as fighter interdiction.

However, if you want to subject them to AA fire, please be my guest  but the rule stands as it is. It is not an error, but a deliberate decision.

Thanks
Mark

[AJ at the Bank]

Thanks for clarifying Scheduled still subject to Air Superiority (AA + fighter) attacks
I would not have thought about that one!
Best
A

[Risaldar Singh]

Three points:
1. Medium bomber attacks (He 111, Ju 88, B-25s, B-26s, A-20s, etc) which made up the overwhelming majority of ground support were made at low level, higher altitude bombing was only used against area targets (i.e. cities). Making all bombers immune to AA fire (since they can only carry out scheduled strikes) is a very broad brush indeed.
2. Just how many times were Flying Fortresses and Halifaxes used for ground attacks in WW2? And how many of these attacks were actually directed at frontline positions?
3. The point about "strategic bombing" might be valid if strategic bombers were considered at any point in the rules. They are not. The only AIR:BM units listed are medium bombers. See point 2 above.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Halifaxes - almost never, by 44 almost of bomber command was flying Lancasters. As to frequency from May to August 44 8th Airforce and Bomber Command were subordinated to the army for support. It was mostly on interdiction targets (rail and road junctions outside the battle area). However - Goodwood, Cobra, Caen, and Villers Bocage all involved heavy bombers. They were also used during the Walceran Battle.

IanS

[Dr Dave]

Ok, so there's an issue surrounding what AA can fire at what bombers at what height - keeping in mind we are talking about He111 and Ju88 types - I'm not convinced how effective HQ MGs could effect bombers flying at perhaps several 1000 feet.

But no AA vs scheduled air attacks! 

So a scheduled Me110 cannot be targeted by AA, but a requested one can be shot at. It's the same aircraft, same height, same AA, same payload, perhaps even the same target! That makes no sense at all. Do the AA stand by and ignore it?